foster children removed for being UKIP members

[EdgarAllanPond]

story here

it seems there were no other reasons. placement otherwise working well.

[flatpackhamster]

I don't think they're targetting your vote anyway. There are three parties already fighting for the votes of Guardian reading smuggards with a massive sense of entitlement.

[flatpackhamster]

If you knew anything about UKIP's media operation you wouldn't make such an hilarious claim.

[flatpackhamster]

It's hard not to resist baiting conspiracy theorists. Maybe UKIP was working with the masons and the lizard people? Maybe you should start a blog on it!

[flatpackhamster]

Oh, you think UKIP planted the story in the media.

Bless.

[flatpackhamster]

Apparently the Mail now has the Slovakian Roma parents claiming that Rotherham council are racist.

[flatpackhamster]

Veritate

flatpackhamster, the Guardian is quoting what the natural parents said - it's not trying to suggest that they were speaking the truth. The part I have quoted certainly bears the ring of truth.

No it isn't. Look at the position of the quotation marks in the article.

I suspect the line of questioning went like this:

Guardian interviewer: "How do you feel when you discover that your children have been placed with a couple who are members of a party who want to murder immigrants and eat their babies?"

Romanian illegal immigrant: "I am disgusted."

[Veritate]

flatpackhamster, the Guardian is quoting what the natural parents said - it's not trying to suggest that they were speaking the truth. The part I have quoted certainly bears the ring of truth.

[johnhemming]

I intended to add "I know more than in the public domain, but not enough to come to a settled view."

[johnhemming]

There is also a question about the other children. This story has a number of loose ends. I know more than is in the public domain

[alemci]

well alcofrolic presumably they are here to stay. The parents sound like wonderful people

[flatpackhamster]

Veritate

^Predictably, it turns out there was much more to this story - www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed^

Predictably, the Guardian is lying through its evil teeth:

"In an interview, the father, along with his wife, told the Guardian the claims of sexual and physical abuse were unfounded. "We just want the children back and the social services to leave us alone. We just want to live as a normal family," said the father.

He said he was "disgusted" to learn that his children had been placed with foster carers who were members of a party opposed to eastern European immigration."

UKIP is not 'opposed to eastern European immigration'.

[Pixel]

I'm thoroughly confused now. Hackmum's post says the children are being returned to the parents. Do they mean the birth parents? But Veritate's post says that the children were taken from the birth parents due to the father abusing them. How many sets of parents are we talking about here?

[alcofrolic]

How thoughtful alemci. Perhaps, while the children are getting over the trauma of terrible abuse and violence, they can fit in a few lessons in English.

[alemci]

wouldn't it be more advantageous for the children to learn to speak the language of the country they are living in.

[hackmum]

The reason I haven't commented on this before was that my first thought was "I bet there's more to it." The problem with stories like this is that the parents (or in this case foster parents) give their version and the social workers/council are forbidden from commenting on individual cases.

The key bit in the Guardian story seems to be this: "A family court judge ruled three of the children should be returned to the parents after the birth parents successfully argued that the council had failed in their duty to ensure the children enjoyed the linguistic right to learn and speak the language of their birth."

Time to make the family courts more open?

[alcofrolic]

Any rational person would have realised that there was more to it. Sadly, many voters in Rotherham don't seem to fall into this category, and the by-election results demonstrate the power of the popular sensationalist press.

(I bet the DM doesn't report the child protection issues.)

[Veritate]

Predictably, it turns out there was much more to this story - www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed

For instance:

"The placement with the Ukip-supporting foster couple was not intended to be long-term. It was an emergency move amid allegations that the children's birth father had sexually abused two of his daughters and had held a knife to his wife's head while she was holding their baby. According to the birth parents, the children were taken in a raid by police and social workers earlier this year.

There were also fears the children's birth parents knew or might be able to find out where the foster parents lived. Though both the birth mother and father claim to continue to have supervised contact with some of their other children, it is believed social workers do not want the parents to know exactly where the children are living because of safety concerns."

[TheEnthusiasticTroll]

I think the problem lies really in how this was managed by the social worker, after seeking legal advice I'm surprised she or he would suggest to the family that ukip hold racisit policies and so that is the reason for removing the children. After thinking about this more I'm not sure I completely stand by my original feelings that this was the correct decision, I feel the decision has been made for all the wrong reasons and so not really the best decision after all.

[vesela]

niceguy - I think uni- and multi- as used by UKIP in its policy are pretty loaded terms, though, plus UKIP isn't suggesting a terribly nuanced policy on issues of multiculturalism and human rights. If it was, it would make that clear.

But the point is that, as Joyce Thacker has confirmed, UKIP's policy on multiculturalism was a factor in the decision. That means it may have tipped the balance. Rotherham Council assumed that, on the basis of the couple's UKIP membership, they subscribed to that policy.