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.

Latara

I copied my page 20 post which perfectly sums it up i thought:

Everyone in my estate including all my immigrant neighbours had UKIP leaflets put through their door twice recently. (local election - hope i'm not outing myself here).

The UKIP leaflet states: ''What UKIP will do for you by voting for me... Control immigration that threatens our public services''

I gather from that leaflet that UKIP supporters including the foster parents (a public service) see the immigrant foster children as ''threatening our public services''.

So logically UKIP supporters are unsuitable foster parents for immigrant children.

That's not a logical conclusion. That's a conclusion based on bigotry and prejudice.

An illogical person is never going to see that their logic in fact isn't.

Yes immigration has to be controlled, logically to not control it would put enormous strain on the economy and resources, where is te racism in that. We are a very small island with finite resources

It was always a temporary foster care placement, so they wouldn't have been there long anyway.

Re the children now being split, that isn't because of this decision, it is very hard to place sibling groups together. Even if the foster carers political leanings wasn't an issue the children would have very likely been split anyway.

Australia, which is not a very small island, has much tighter immigration laws than the UK. Are they all racist?

I think this incident has probably won the UKIP a lot of new voters. People will be sitting up and taking notice of them. If you've never seen Farage talking there's lots on You tube. He's a great speaker

Honestly in my experience the Australians want to preserve their high standard of living. They have no intention of allowing just anyone in.

Everyone has missed my point.

It's ok think we need to control immigration.

It's not ok to publically support parties that blame immigrants for the strain on public services if you are fostering immigrant children.

Just one negative comment on immigrants could seriously damage the already vulnerable childrens' self-esteem - that's logical!!

Nope Latara, still not logical.

Latara, the family have been quoted to say they have nothing against immigrants. Did you read the story in the newspapers?

If they had perhaps they wouldn't have fostered THREE immigrant children.

I agree that breaking up the children was a huge step to take and it is an absolute disgrace if you ask me. Especially as SS only received a 'tip-off' from a phonecall that the couple voted UKIP - good gracious it smacks of Stasi or police state. The SS' intrusive six-month screening process revealed nothing untoward - if the political allegiance was so important why was it not exposed before?

"Control immigration that threatens our public services''

refers to those that have not yet come but could.

"Control immigrants that threatens our public services'' would of course be a different kettle of halibut, but they didn't say that except in your fevered imagination.

Tiggytape.

My point was, that when they are moved to a longer term rather than emergency placement, it was likely they would be split, so nothing abnormal there at all.

Im familiar with the ins and outs of fostering.

It is quite usual for a child to be placed on a temporary basis at the point of being taken into care, with a view to find a more suitable family for the longer term [if necessary]

So the point is, these children would not have stayed with these foster carers for long anyway, so talk of disruption to the children by moving them misses a huge point of what actually happens anyway.

Latara- it is possible for people to hold POLITICAL views (ie about social/immigration policies) and this not manifest itself into personal relationships or dealing with PEOPLE and in particular, children on a day to day basis.

For example someone could take a strong anti EU stance- do you think this means they would be unpleasant or disrespectful to European people? No, it just means they they hold a political ideal and would like govt action on a particular issue. Good people treat others on their own merit irrespective of where they are from DESPITE their political views.

There is no evidence these children were being harmed in any way. They were all together in a secure, safe loving home and have now been ripped away.
Common sense really has gone out of the window on this one.
I wonder if the children would have wanted to be removed if they had been asked.

Australia at one point had a policy explicitly called a "white Australia" policy. Can you tell me that's not racist? Then there is what Australia's first (well, actually probably not first, but that's another story) generations of immigrants did to the Aborigine population.

This was not a case of a stable family relationship being broken up - it was a foster placement which had been in place for quite a short time and was not necessarily intended to be permanent at the start.

I think it's disgraceful that this story with very little substantive fact should have been used as the basis of UKIP's by election campaign in Rotherham. I think this use of a case of vulnerable kids is really dishonest, I think there are all sorts of confidentiality issues, and the way this been used rather demonstrates another reason against this family fostering the children - people who use this as a political campaigning point aren't really prioritising the needs of the children they claimed they wanted to care for.

And how can foster carers be referred to as "parents" after just a few weeks - just heard more use of sloppy language on the radio.

Did UKIP somehow control this event elkiedee? Are you suggesting that Joyce Thacker is some kind of double agent for UKIP?

oh god what the heck has a white Australia policy got to do with this story?

And so what if they are referred to as foster parents, you really are taking this too far outside the realms of common sense, comments like that make you look terribly foolish.

In some cultures/language, "brother" and "sister" and "parent" have far greater definitions than they would do in other cultures in English. In French, "parent" can mean parent or relative, I cannot believe you could be complaining about using the word "foster parent" instead of "foster carer"...... semantic political correctness gone completely loopy. Where is your common sense?

Perhaps you should read the last page of the thread, Australia's immigration control policies were cited approvingly, I didn't introduce the subject, other posters did, I was responding to earlier posts.

"Parents" here is being used to describe people who had cared for the children for 8 weeks. It's a very emotively loaded word which is being used inaccurately.

I totally agree nanation.

Let me get this straight. People in support of Rotheram's decision, think the children's 'multicultural needs' are more important than stability and them staying together as siblings until a suitable, considered permanant home is found? Haven't they been through enough already?

They hold very intolerant views, and have even gone so far as to make it official, by joining UKIP.

Who is being intolerant here? I thought intolerant meant an inability to tolerate other people's views- silly me! So not at all what you doing then. . . .

This is a real headfuck...

On the one hand, it's dodgy territory for Rotherham Council to have removed children from a family with which they had been placed for some time on the basis of that family's political allegiances. Presumably the couple haven't acted in a xenophobic manner or actually DONE anything beyond being members of UKIP?

It's iffy for the council to take the stance that this membership is indicative of racist leanings, because that implies that UKIP is a racist party. That they may well be, but it is a big step for a council to openly state that against an established and recognised political organisation. I'm sure there's some issue of libel/slander (can't remember which) in there somewhere.

HOWEVER... you don't join a political party unless you strongly agree with their policies, so we can infer that this couple are behind the shite campaigns that UKIP have put forth and their stance on immigration and multiculturalism. I can see that this would easily be incompatible with providing a loving and nurturing environment in which to care for vulnerable children of non-British background.

I can't make my mind up if the move is censorship of some form, or just plain common sense in the best interests of the children.

Are you meaning this from MAMAMARY?
Australia, which is not a very small island, has much tighter immigration laws than the UK. Are they all racist?

Please note the use of the present tense. You referred to a white Australia policy from when exactly?

I couldn't care how long these "parents" had cared for these children. Don't be so stupid, don't insult people's intelligence by saying that word should be restricted for use by whom exactly, people who have cared as surrogate parents for how long? 12 weeks? 6 months? 5 years? At which point is it acceptable for you to use the word "parent"?

just been reading up on the UKIP site and to be honest it concerns me that this party are controlling, will marginalise people and are obviously racist albeit very thinly veiled. This section is apparently 'their' way of life but would it be everyone elses? getting back to the original discussion using phrases such as ' Muliculturalism has split our society' worries me. Especially if children who are from another country have been placed with people who believe this bollocks
Taken from UKIP site
'6 Our Way Of Life

? Our traditional values have been undermined. Children are taught to be ashamed of our past. Multiculturalism has split our society. Political correctness is stifling free speech.

? The law of the land must be single and apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law.

? End the ban on smoking in allocated rooms in public houses, clubs and hotels.

? Hold County wide referenda on the hunting ban.

UKIP is a patriotic party that believes in putting Britain first. To shore up the collapsing Euro the EU is now seeking to pull away the props of our national economy - control of taxation and spending. Only UKIP will give the power to the British people to regain self-government.'

the foster carers sound far more sensitive to the children's needs than Rotherham council:

"From a personal and selfish point of view, we would like the children back,? the wife said. ?But we are more concerned with the children?s welfare, and we do not want them traumatised any more than they already have been. It is not going to be feasible to take these children back. They are the innocent victims in all this. They deserve better.?

what on earth has opposition to the ban on hunting or smoking in public places got to do with the price of fish or indeed this discussion? As for one law applying to all, that sounds eminently sensible and laudable to me.

Over the past 15 years, we've had record immigration - levels not experienced since the Norman Conquest according to some historians. The fact it has happened so peacefully is something of which we should be proud - in many countries it would have brought strife and unrest. Ordinary people have every right to debate and discuss the impact of immigration - that's what happens in a democracy.