Foster Children removed from couple for UKIP membership

[BOR]

MX7 said:

There is an explanation as to what's happened there. Joyce Thacker even says that she believes that UKIP has a policy of "ending multiculturalism". It doesn't, and she's a fking moron.

UKIP-Manifesto said:

End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies.

Seems like it does to me.

[bitchstewie]

BOR said:

Seems like it does to me.

There's a difference between wanting to end something and not wishing to actively promote it as government policy.

[turbobloke]

BOR said:

UKIP-Manifesto said:

End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies.

Seems like it does to me.

If a Chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (Trevor Phillips) argues that multiculturalism's legacy is 'have a nice day' racism i.e. it has failed on its basic aim, and if somebody in the position and standing of a Chief Rabbi says multiculturalism has failed, this doesn't mean that multiculturalism has failed but it certainly deserves some consideration. Looking around over the years at evidence available in the public domain, I would say it hasn't succeeded.

[RedTrident]

There's a difference between the doctrine of multiculturalism and the reality of a multi cultural society.

The doctrine criticism is in reference to the response of government policy and not a diverse British society.

There are many multicultural policies that have resulted in encouraging/supporting/allowing/turning a blind eye to practices that have been detrimental for our society.

I'm not white British and definitely no fan of the Far Right. I never looked at UKIP and saw them as a Far Right party.

[Grenoble]

purplepolarbear said:

However, if you were a child from country x and you see UKIP material every day that says we should end our membership of the EU so people from country x stop coming here and taking our jobs would you feel loved?

I'm a conservative. I used to be a party member. I'd state that if asked in any poll. My bookshelves have a balance of biographies of Thatcher, Reagan, Churchill, Blair, etc, and no manifestos. If any child of mine asked, I'd explain the system and let them make their own decision whilst encouraging them to read as much as possible from balanced sources.

I haven't seen anything that suggested the parents were force feeding political material or displaying any propaganda....

[Zeeky]

The authorities have a duty to ensure the cultural differences of the children - due to them being from continental Europe - is respected and that the foster parents do not, in a cultural sense, anglicise them.

There are many reasons why people join political parties and the question should be more direct rather than making assumptions about how children will be cared for on the basis of membership of a political party.

[turbobloke]

Almost forgot...stirring in the little grey cells suggests that CMD, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have all offered the same view that multiculturalism has failed. Again, these are opinions not facts and appealing to authorities in politics is a bigger waste of time than usual, but in general, where there is a concept such as multiculturalism which has been seen by informed observers like the Commonwealth Chief Rabbi as having failed such that racism is still rife, surely not being seen as a racist is consistent with not supporting an approach which is seen as having failed in its key aim? Both are perceptions only but both are consistent with not supporting racism.

[anonymous-user]

purplepolarbear said:

I'm sure they wouldn't do so deliberately, but it would be difficult to hide it from the kids and the kids would have some understanding, maybe misinformed, that UKIP isn't a good thing for people from their country in the UK. Hence they wouldn't trust the foster parents and feel loved by them.

But what exactly is 'wrong' with UKIP policies?

I'd be more worried if they went to a religious family with god fearing literature left about.

[TangerinePool]

Frighteningly stupid load of utter bs

How the fk can grown adults interpret "We support controlled immigration" as "We abhor all races, creeds and colours and burn effigies of them daily and will do this to the kiddies too MUHAAAAAAHHHAHAHAA!!!"

If anything UKIPs stance on immigration is spot on irrespective of whether you support the party or not. In theory shouldn't it lead to better control and a fairer balance for everyone if deployed correctly? Required skills can come in and work here whilst spongers can remain where they are.

WTF am I missing apart from stupid political posturing?

I'm dumbfounded...

[anonymous-user]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Dixie68]

Zeeky said:

The authorities have a duty to ensure the cultural differences of the children - due to them being from continental Europe - is respected and that the foster parents do not, in a cultural sense, anglicise them.

In an ideal world yes, in the real world where there are not enough families of the same ethnicity to foster what do you suggest? Leaving the children in council care or placing them with a loving family from a different ethnic background. Anyway, this story is not about that as these children were already placed, they were taken away because the council deems that being a member of UKIP means you are a racist.

[thinfourth2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

Michael Gove has branded a decision by a Rotherham council to remove three children from a foster couple because they belong to UKIP as "indefensible"


In reality

Michael Gove has thought oh st thats more votes gone to UKIP

[Mojocvh]

thinfourth2 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

Michael Gove has branded a decision by a Rotherham council to remove three children from a foster couple because they belong to UKIP as "indefensible"


In reality

Michael Gove has thought oh st thats more votes gone to UKIP

Yep.

[brenflys777]

BBC and Sky news have been reporting that the main political parties agree with UKIP on this, Labour and Conservatives united. No mention of the Lib Dems.

Is it because they are not a main party anymore, because they agree with the council decision or because no one in the party is prepared to comment?

[Zeeky]

Dixie68 said:

...In an ideal world yes, in the real world where there are not enough families of the same ethnicity to foster what do you suggest? L

My suggestion was in the part of my post you did not quote

The foster parents should be questioned on how they will deal with the fact that the children have foreign cultural identities as well as the fact they will inevitably be anglicised to a large extent because they are growing up here. If the answer is "They live in Britain now, they are British and "X" is no longer relevant to them" then I would question the foster parents' suitability.

If the answer is "It hadn't occured to us" then all is not lost. The foster parents can be assisted with the children's care.

My point is that membership of UKIP is, in itself , insufficient to assess the parents' ability and willingness to protect the cultural identity of the children.

[Mr_B]

Once again the UK wets itself that it might be seen to be racist, panics and rushes in with a dumb decision to prove its not.
I think Rotherham has much more pressing issues of actual failed child care with racial overtones that have been buried to worry about

[RedTrident]

Mojocvh said:

thinfourth2 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

Michael Gove has branded a decision by a Rotherham council to remove three children from a foster couple because they belong to UKIP as "indefensible"


In reality

Michael Gove has thought oh st thats more votes gone to UKIP

Yep.

Rather than he just thinking like most of us that what has taken place as being indefensible?

[Mojocvh]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20475321

Interesting interview, "thinking going forwards" and all that sort of shyte.

for comparison..

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1499-imm...

Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 24th November 12:37

[anonymous-user]

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 ?

Wow. This couple were happily providing a home to 'the foreign' and you wonder if it's worth the risk? I try not to be personal on here but every time you open your mouth you sound like a complete asshole.

[rover 623gsi]

MX7 said:

rover 623gsi said:

okay - just seen that quote.

Read the thread before you post.

rover 623gsi said:

I don't see how membership of any legal, political party should have any bearing on the ability of anyone to be a foster parent.

The National Front is legal because we have a tolerant and liberal attitude in this country. It doesn't mean that just because a party is legal, it is desirable that it's members become foster parents.

I think that the NF approaches racial hatred, and it is quite open about it's policies that discriminate due to colour or ethnicity. I can't see why an openly racist person would ever make a good foster parent.

This is about someone who is too stupid to understand UKIP's policies.

the quote to which I later referred did not appear in the thread before my first post.