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.

I can't believe that people don't realise what potential damage can be done by a foster cater that disagree with a child having certain rights in this country.
Brady what is this damage that can arise from this, do you have experience of it- I am genuinely interested in how it could be more important than being secure, safe and loved.

If, God forbid, I were to lose my children I would prefer, as a white, Catholic Tory, have them brought up by a black Labour-voting atheist couple who were warm, loving and decent then have them removed because their ethnic/religious/cultural 'rights' were being infringed.

EXACTLY Abra- I think the vast majority of parents if they were honest would want this too. It's not like we are over-run with excellent foster carers willing to give homes to children with little/no English and emotional difficulties.

willow being cared for by people who feel you have no place or rights within this country can do damage. Its like a woman being raised by a sexist who gives her the impression she isn't good enought because she is a female.

So because this couple support Ukip, they necessarily tell the children they have no place or rights here? Do we know that they even think this? It's very presumptive to asume because they disagree with the reasons the children are in the UK to start with, that they believe the children have no rights!

The point is the children are here now for whatever reason, and the foster carers were trying to do the right thing and give them a good start.

Why would they agree to look after them and provide exemplary care if they believe they have no place/ rights here?

My teenage daughter again:

Sorry to disagree with you with Tiggy, but one read of UKIP's own website refutes your claims that they agree with gay adoption and marriage.
UKIP have stated that they support gay adoption, but not the decision that catholic foster agencies should allow gay couples to adopt, and banned if they do not, as all children deserve a loving home. Contradictory there, I'm sure I don't have to point out where, but surely a gay couple can provide that loving home too.

Also, UKIP have agreed with civil partnerships for gay couples, but not gay marriage as it is not in the interest of the people.

Finally, posters on here saying that they were 'exemplary parents,' and writing flammatory statements about 'multicultural thought police,' and slamming Joyce Thacker appear to have almost directly copied the views of journalist Melanie Phillips, who writes for the Daily Mail. In fact, many views stated here could almost have been copied and pasted from one incredibly biased news article on the daily mail website, I can't take those views seriously I'm afraid!

Go and read the Huffington Post, and newly updated articles that are confirming what I wrote yesterday evening, about information not yet released by the social services and an exterior investigation currently taking place. Read any news articles other than the daily mail article, to confirm my sources.

Lets look at my first post
*
This is why people worry about Ukip members fostering children. Because their candidates are often bigots*

My original point was (an I am going to stop going off on a tangent), that it is incidents like this that make people concerned about UKIP.

While the party is arguing that only the ability to love these children should be taken into consideration, a prominent figure in their party is saying 'well actually, gay people adopting is abuse'.

So which is it? Is the ability to care paramount for these children or not?

Why has no one from Ukip made clear they are not party policies, like the Tories, labour, lib Dems would be expected to.

'David Coburn, Chairman of Ukip London, who is openly gay, said in a statement posted on Facebook that McKenzie does not represent the views of the party and that they supported gay marriage.'

Can I just reiterate regarding the lack of foster carers that can deal with children with difficulties. We have been waiting for overnight support/respite for our daughter who is a severely disabled and we have been waiting since MAY for someone suitable to be matched to us and this is for one overnight A MONTH!

I think crossing over the line for political affiliation is a really grey area when it's a party that operates the way it does (ie. not the bNP) I am not sure as a foster carer children in your care would have any idea what your political stance was anyway, I don't think my own children know mine except when i swear at Call me Dave and Gideon on tv

Please see above post UKIP do NOT support gay marriage only civil partnership.
Is a definition needed?

Sources : www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/11/16/no-intention-to-support-same-sex-marriage-says-ukip/ - 16/11/12

Source for prev post:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9705335/Ukip-fostering-row-senior-councillor-in-Rotherham-accuses-people-of-wading-in-to-pass-judgement.html

Pink news:
On the issue of gay adoption, Mr Coburn went on to say: ?UKIP is a libertarian party, we are categorically not against gay adoption; what we do have a problem with is that Catholic adoption agencies have been banned for opposing gay adoption. The only thing that matters is that the children receive a safe and loving home.?

Mincy - one third of the country don't support gay marriage.

Tiggy- I clearly stated that other posters on here with strong biased views appear to have directly copied these from the daily mail article in question. Not myself.

Nancy- well perhaps they should.

Tiggy read the source I have just posted.

yes, perhaps they should but it's totally irrelevant in this matter.

FYI
I have not read any daily mail article and can formulate my own arguments without copying what journalists have said.
Perhaps we have the same reactions because we share the same opinions and have something called common sense.

Not sure how comments about gay marriage are relavant to the debate, as we have no facts on what the couple in question's views were on it.

How did this end up with gay marriage? Opposition to gay marriage is biblical and a lot of people oppose it for religious reasons. This has nothing to do with punishing foster carers because you don't like their politics.

So Mincy what you are really saying is that people are only suitable to be foster carers if their views match yours. Any deviation from this is bigoted?

Definition of bigotry - utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Does that sound familliar?

Bigogtry doesn't mean 'is a member of Ukip or doesn't agree with gay marriage'.

I was addressing people's questions.
The discussion on gay adoption and marriage was linked to UKIP's views and how they are relevant to the foster case currently. It doesn't look good for the party for their cultural spokesmen to release a statement like his.

The discussion progressed saying it is not the views of the party, to which I have now posted several sources clarifying that belief, UKIP as a party whole have released statements about how they do no support gay marriage and gay adoption when regarding catholic foster agencies.

So my tangent does link, the root of it was forgotten.

The poster discussing with me that is one view of one member and that does not reflect the party, I have shown otherwise. Others could use my evidence to support the claim that the foster parents as members of the party were subscribed to the parties beliefs, that are harmful towards multiculturalism and equal rights, and fair foster care for all parents regardless of sexuality. Whether or not they upheld them, it was the main party views. They had vulnerable, multicultural migrants in their care.

My conclusion however, is that we shouldn't form a strong opinion, until both sides have had their say, like I said yesterday evening. As sourced from the Telegraph, BBC, Huffington Post and many other articles. The case is ongoing, no firm evidence has been released as of yet.

Jay

Willow berry. It astounds me how you have quoted me, I don't recall using that term, but thank you for the definition, I was struggling to understand 'bigot.'

I have never stated that opinion, you have erroneously grasped that from factual sources I have posted from the UKIP's own released statements.

Do you believe them to be bigots? You seem to insinuate that misguidedly.

(But please continue calling my teenage daughter a bigot for her sourced opinions, it is my personal opinion that gay marriage should be supported for all and civil partnerships as heterosexual couples cannot either, that was irrelevant to the foster discussion, you can attack that view in a different topic.)

This is why people worry about Ukip members fostering children. Because their candidates are often bigots

Apologies mincy this was said by and aimed at brady. Having two conversations at once.