foster children removed for being UKIP members

[EdgarAllanPond]

story here

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

I completely agree that if they hold racist views - even slightly racist views - they shouldn't be allowed to foster the children.

BUT - as EAP says - we don't know that they are racist. If you join a party, you are not signing up to all of its policies. I completely agree that wanting to end the promotion of multiculturalism is racist, but the point is that it's just one of UKIP's policies. When someone joins a party, there is no way of telling which of the party's policies they subscribe to, no way of forcing them to subscribe to any of them, and nor should there be. If you were the sort of person who lived and breathed Britain's withdrawal from the EU, you could easily want to join UKIP in the hope that you could get the policy on multiculturalism changed. In fact, I can imagine there might well be moves afoot to do just that.

As far as I can see, the only condition for joining UKIP is that you're not allowed to have previously been a member of the BNP etc.

"Membership is not available to anyone who is or has previously been a member of the British National Party, National Front, British Freedom Party, British People's Party, English Defence League, Britain First or the UK First Party. Any applications made from people who are or have been members of these organisations will be refused, and any subscriptions collected will be refunded."

I completely agree that wanting to end the promotion of multiculturalism is racist

I disagree. Just because you don't promote it, it doesn't mean you are thereby racist.

Their policy on uni-culturism based upon fair play and democracy does not sound racist to me and as a member of an ethic minority myself UKIP don't bother me. There's a big difference between UKIP and BNP.

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.

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.

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."

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.)

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?

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

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.

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?

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'.

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

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

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

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.

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."

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

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

Bless.

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!

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