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.

Thacker from Rotherham cc did say they held meetings with the carers over several days before deciding to remove the children, so I agree it wasn't a snap judgment.

I don't think Rotherham have handled this badly so far. It's UKIP and the carers making all the fuss and other politician a exploding the decision into a big media melee.

What does it mean to be opposed to the promotion of multiculturalism by public bodies any way, if this is the objectionable policy?

I know a man from Mauritius, he is of the opinion that if you come to the UK you learn English, try to integrate, but you stil maintain your traditions, etc. in your own home. It is not clear what needs to be 'promoted' here.

My own family is of mixed culture. We maintain links with our other country by visits, cooking food, meeting people of the same national background, watching movies and other media of our other country, and so on. None of this is promoted by public bodies, yet we still are able to do it without promotion, eg with the support of the embassy. Obviously certain cultures enjoy a greater status in Britain, with translation services, and other public services, but it is from our experience not necessary, and to me it seems that you can oppose this 'public promotion' while still engaging in private activities that might be described as multicultural (and we do).

Nobody drives anybody to UKIP. It's entirely a personal decision if you dislike foreigners and multiculturalism.

I think most people associate ukip with leaving the EU. hence their high vote in euro elections. I doubt most people have studied their manifesto, any more than many have read the Tory or labour manifestos.

but you don't place vulnerable children in the homes of people who don't want them in the country...

So now these foster carers don't want the children in the country?

WTAF.

Others on here have put it far more eloquently than I could but I back social services on this one 100%. I think the lady from Rotherham council on the bbc this morning came across really well in saying that, in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, for these PARTICULAR CHILDREN, this was the right thing to do. I watched thinking that surely this would be one of those cases where the tabloids jumped on something but when they heard the full story all the public would not understand what the issue was. Sadly, reading this thread ( and indeed hearing the view of my own DH!) , it seems I was wrong.

Do you think the children gave a damn over the foster carers political stance? Or do you think they just wanted to be safe. Them having the views of the UKIP doesn't make them bad people or abusers, they were obviously approved at some point!

Gove on the news talking about 'foster parents'.

He's just doing it to wind me up, LineRunner

It is particularly sad that the boy was taken first, and the girls a few days later. Unless someone can explain otherwise, I take that to mean they have been fostered out to 2 different families. I don't see how that has the interests of the children at heart

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for-being-members-of-Ukip.html

The children have been split up. Rotherham has separated a sibling group for political ends - not because the foster carers weren't exemplary carers, merely because they belong to a political party. That is outrageous and deeply cruel to those children. What's more it is damaging the cultural needs of those children - as a sibling group they could talk to each other in their own language, now that isn't possible for the boy.

Appalling bigotry from a social services department that is already guilty of severe dereliction of duty towards vulnerable girls who were being gang-raped and abused. You would think, after failing to protect victims because their attackers were Asian (minutes record the council being more concerned about the ethnicity of the attackers than protecting children), the council would be very, very careful about throwing around accusations of racism.

I am not a UKIP voter or supporter, btw. Far from it. But I absolutely defend the right of anyone to belong to any political party they fancy without being penalised for it.

(Gove was adopted I believe - so when he talks about foster parents he may well be using the terminology that was around when he was growing up.)

But wasn't that placement actually never intended to be permanent?

I think you are missing the point. The children haven't been removed because this placement has come to an end or because the council have found a better placement - in fact, it's far worse, they have been separated from each other so are being actively harmed. The council admits these foster carers were great and the children were doing extremely well. It is purely bigotry on the part of the council. Which is ironic, given so many people are so quick to accuse UKIP members of bigotry. (Just in case there's any doubt, my own political views are decided NOT UKIP.)

joanbyers

Please don't confuse this thread with sensible real life experience

edam, the children are the ones who have had their lives turned upsidedown. It's tragic really.

Apparently Gove's adoptive family were Labour supporters.

So we are supporting multi-party stuff as long as it's not UKIP?

Wow,massive chips on shoulders coming to the surface here.

Given that it was never intended to be a long-term placement, it doesn't seem best to move them if it has meant that now the siblings are separated. Is there any suggestion that the children themselves said they were unhappy there?

I also don't like or support UKIP's views but I'm far from convinced that the council have made the right call here.

Is is offensive to use the term 'foster parents'? I can guess that 'foster carer' is now the standard term but is it actually considered bad form to use 'foster parent'?

Snazzy they are low down on the list here as far as I can see.

Basically if the children are returned it matters not in some ways, the message has been sent loud and clear to all other foster parents.

I really hate this stuff.

Try this campers. order-order.com/2012/11/24/progressive-culture-war-caused-rotheram-ukip-child-catcher/

I work with SN children, many of whom are in care. By definition, these children are always difficult to deal with: even babes-in-arms instinctively miss their mothers; older ones are often consciously or subconsciously difficult ot rebellious.

The real heroes of the care system are that small group of foster-carers who are able to provide "emergency foster care": to take in children, frequently groups of siblings who have often previously lived violently dysfunctional lives, at zero hours notice and to create from scratch (or well below scratch) a well structured loving & caring environment - that takes dedication!

The Rotherham couple were just those foster carers, able to take a group of siblings on emergency placement and provide them with a suitable environment whilst the council found a well-meaning but less experienced or less capable family to take on their long-term care. Then they find themselves banned from caring for those children simply because they have a different view about the political economy of the EU than the bureaucrats of their local council, who would probably call the police if they saw such children in their street, let alone in their homes ...

It has been a long time since a newspaper story actually made me angry; this one has made me homicidal. Just as well I don't live near Rotherham...

babytrasher xx I understand your post.