Foster Children removed from couple for UKIP membership
Discussion
rover 623gsi said:
not a UKIP supporter by any means but if true then this story is outrageous. However, we only have the couple's word that it is their membership of UKIP is what caused the children to removed from their care.
No we don't. Both 'sides' agree.Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC: "We always try to place children in a sensible cultural placement.
"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
offendi said:
Well would you want your kids looked after by anyone with such severe emotional and psychological problems that would support the UKImbecileParty ? shudder
Why not? The council have said there's no issue with the quality of care provided, they're currently looking after these children after all.eldar said:
"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
The social workers are "damned if they do, damned if they don't"They are responsible for the safety of the kids they place, and, with the best will in the world, a lot of UKIP members have a tendency to the sendemback.
The majority might not be racist, but they sure don't like The Foreign.
Is it worth the risk ?
FiF said:
Lunatics running the asylum. Somebody earlier on said this situation was par for the course with Rotherham Council, if so why are the Councillors and Officers not accompanied everywhere by a responsible adult? We might then avoid such idiocy.
BOR said:
The social workers are "damned if they do, damned if they don't"
They are responsible for the safety of the kids they place, and, with the best will in the world, a lot of UKIP members have a tendency to the sendemback.
The majority might not be racist, but they sure don't like The Foreign.
Is it worth the risk ?
You appear to apply apply the same irrational judgement on members of UKIP that racists and xenophobes apply to people of different racial backgrounds or different countries. They are responsible for the safety of the kids they place, and, with the best will in the world, a lot of UKIP members have a tendency to the sendemback.
The majority might not be racist, but they sure don't like The Foreign.
Is it worth the risk ?
eldar said:
rover 623gsi said:
not a UKIP supporter by any means but if true then this story is outrageous. However, we only have the couple's word that it is their membership of UKIP is what caused the children to removed from their care.
No we don't. Both 'sides' agree.Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC: "We always try to place children in a sensible cultural placement.
"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
Happy82 said:
UKIP = racists was a slur that went around at the last elections, it is an easy way of trying to put people off voting for them when they are a growing threat to the main three political parties.
This fiasco is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Dave promised us an EU referendum and reneged on his decision, nothing really changes and faceless idiots get to make decisions like this.Well done Rotherham, you've just converted a lifelong Tory to the UKIP
brenflys777 said:
BOR said:
The social workers are "damned if they do, damned if they don't"
They are responsible for the safety of the kids they place, and, with the best will in the world, a lot of UKIP members have a tendency to the sendemback.
The majority might not be racist, but they sure don't like The Foreign.
Is it worth the risk ?
You appear to apply apply the same irrational judgement on members of UKIP that racists and xenophobes apply to people of different racial backgrounds or different countries. They are responsible for the safety of the kids they place, and, with the best will in the world, a lot of UKIP members have a tendency to the sendemback.
The majority might not be racist, but they sure don't like The Foreign.
Is it worth the risk ?
And this is not do-or-don't where a child has been injured because they fell down the stairs or bumped into a door...they're damned if they behave like politically correct imbeciles, and rightly so in this case.
BOR said:
eldar said:
"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
The social workers are "damned if they do, damned if they don't"They are responsible for the safety of the kids they place, and, with the best will in the world, a lot of UKIP members have a tendency to the sendemback.
The majority might not be racist, but they sure don't like The Foreign.
Is it worth the risk ?
To raise and care for them for a bit before they 'sendemback'?
To take them to the local UKIP meeting where they are used as target practice?
BOR said:
eldar said:
"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
The social workers are "damned if they do, damned if they don't"They are responsible for the safety of the kids they place, and, with the best will in the world, a lot of UKIP members have a tendency to the sendemback.
The majority might not be racist, but they sure don't like The Foreign.
Is it worth the risk ?
I think you and you're ilk are, like Rotherham, talking out of their arses!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff