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.

SpritedWolf's comment

If UKIP doesn't like the idea that their stance on multiculturalism and immigration might mean that someone could challenge the placement of children of immigrants with their members then maybe they need to look again at their policies

echoes what I was saying yesterday.

And the leaflet to which latara refers is also indicative of UKIP's weird naivety when it comes to how their 'bolt-on' policies will be seen in the Real World of family courts, schools and statutory serviecs.

Rotherham council is saying UKIP members can't be foster carers - while admitting this couple are good foster carers. The head of social services is clearly incapable of thinking logically, as well as horribly bigoted.

Latara - you say their leaflet says "control immigration". It does not, I assume, say "stop immigration" or you would have said so.

Forgive me, but, as a writer, those two words are VERY different.

It really is taking the argument to absurd extremes to claim that wanting to limit immigration makes you racist or unable to care for children whose parents come from abroad. Each of our main political parties says they want to control immigration. So by that argument, you'd have to disallow everyone who is a member of a political party - except possibly the Greens, I have no idea what their stance is on immigration.

Yet Rotherham is appealing for foster parents because they are desperately short of them!

Best interests of the child my arse, it's a very funny way to interpret best interests to split up a sibling group and remove them from what are acknowledge to be excellent foster carers. Separating siblings is not 'meeting their needs' in any way, shape or form. Social services should stop going way over their brief - especially they have already been exposed as a department that refused to tackle abuse where the perpetrators happened to be Asian.

If DH and I fostered this is what our views are:

Working is important
God is important
Education is important
Drugs are illegal
All cultures should be respected
You can't take out more than you are prepared to put in
Every act has a consequence good or bad
Manners are important
Love is important
Being nice is important
Doing your best is important
Tolerance is important
Obeying rules is important
Cleanliness is imortant
Order is important
Having goals is important
The police are generally helpful
Breaking the law is wrong
Sport, music and other interests are important

We are Conservative. We are White. We are middle class. We are educated. We are not especially PC. We both work (although I would go part-time if we did foster which we have no intention of doing). We have two lovely teenagers.

Somehow I doubt that social services would approve us.

voice of unreason

The ukip manifesto says they want to " freeze permanent immigration for five years" and "end open door immigration"

I think that's pretty clear. How much closer to stop does it need to be?

marriedinwhite Of course you would be approved.

Why haven't any parallels been drawn between the Derby couple who were prevented from fostering because of their homophobic, perceived homophobic 'Christian values' and this case. I hate the narrowness of this debate!

Just like most other EEC members then. Funny how a Slovakian au-pair of ours had to leave Germany after two years but could stay here indefinitely and asked DH and I to write her a fraudulent letter saying she worked less than 15 hour pw (she was contracted for 25) so she could claim and then got arsy when we said no way.

By the way, who took the story of the fostered children in Rotherham to the media?

Marriedinwhite's post shows quite how disastrous this policy is - because it will discourage potential foster carers when we have a massive shortage of them. Quite apart from the appalling effect on these poor children.

People can slag off UKIP all they like - wouldn't be my choice of party either - but they are perfectly legal political party. Their policies are irrelevant just as Tory policies on immigration are irrelevant, or Labour or Lib Dems. All mainstream parties support a cap on immigration.

'a few rightwing newspapers publish an article'

Including those well-known fascist rags, The Guardian and The Independent.

I've never bought the Independent since it took advertising from Dads For Convenience which lifted MN posts out of context and suggested that MN as a whole thought that all men and boys were evil sexual predators. Actually.

edam

Married in white's post shows nothing because he/she hasn't been denied the opportunity to foster.

There is nothing in the post that suggests she/he would be refused either.

The couple in question haven't been banned from fostering either.

There is a quite considerable level of hysteria and mid-information being posted from some I quarters here. None of which, I think, helps rational debate.

I also agree with a poster a few pages back who suggested the legal arguments regarding this case may be quite com

Sorry!

... May be unite complex and that it has been highlighted that legal advice led to the removal of the children.

I hope that Rotherham cc's investigation and outcome will allow them to respond with more detail on monday

why is the UKIP policy so bad anyway. I think it makes sense. I live in Greater London and see the result of the open door policy since 1997. Doesn't make people racist to support this idea. Alot of original immigrants are fed up with the system too.

There may be more to this story but if the people are kind and have an exemplary record of fostering then let them get on with. Why are people being indoctrinated with the 'council knows best mantra' all the time. I don't think they do.

It's up to the family court judge.

The family court judge grants the care order, or otherwise.

I think people who take drugs and drink to excess are a drain on our resources, it doesnt mean I dont think that their children need help.

It is entirely possible to want to control immigration (my mother is a first generation migrant) while at the same time, not wanting the children of immigrants to suffer and wanting to help them have a good life.

This is a disgusting and bigotted decision, I couldn't believe what I was listening to on (the BBC NEWS) the news last night - these children have been removed from a home where the standard of the care is not in question, because of the foster carers political preferences, absolutely appalling.

On the BBC News from the mouth of the head of Social Services.

alemci

What's wrong with the ukip position is that it is against eu law and as we are members of the eu, that makes it an untenable position and if enforced currently, it would also be illegal.

Mystery is it against the free movement of EU members? I don't really know so I am not being snidey.

Alot of the voters want to leave the EU anyway so it is actually taking notice of the electorate which the other parties don't seem to at times. Is it so wrong to want to change laws anyway?

It cannot be against eu law when Germany and Belgium both have set limits in relation to the movement of other eu members. There cannot be on law for the UK in Europe and a different law for other eu members.

The first step to being a foster carer is picking up the phone. If you already think you won't be suitable because you are not left-wing pc enough, after seeing this case on TV, then yes, of course it will be deterring future foster carers. The posters on here who don't think they will be suitable are a prime example of this

Controlling immigration is a policy of our current government, because amongst other reasons, they argue it puts too much strain on public services. It is hardly a novel idea of UKIPs

The first step to being a foster carer is picking up the phone. If you already think you won't be suitable because you are not left-wing pc enough, after seeing this case on TV, then yes, of course it will be deterring future foster carers. The posters on here who don't think they will be suitable are a prime example of this

Controlling immigration is a policy of our current government, because amongst other reasons, they argue it puts too much strain on public services. It is hardly a novel idea of UKIPs

Yes, that's it.

If it was a straight proposal to leave the eu that would be one thing, as you say offering the electorate choice, but ukip are described as "closet racists" by Cameron, so what motivates their policy may be more sinister.