Foster Children removed from couple for UKIP membership
Discussion
I cannot articulate my contempt for Rotherham council officers for their decision.
link
link
Daily Telegraph said:
Foster parents 'stigmatised and slandered’ for being members of UKIP
A couple had their three foster children taken away by a council on the grounds that their membership of the UK Independence Party meant that they supported “racist” policies.
The husband and wife, who have been fostering for nearly seven years, said they were made to feel like criminals when a social worker told them that their views on immigration made them unsuitable carers.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, the couple said they feared that there was a black mark against their name and they would not be able to foster again.
Last night campaigners representing foster parents described the decision as “ridiculous” and warned that it could deter other prospective foster parents from volunteering.
Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, described the actions of Rotherham borough council as “a bloody outrage” and “political prejudice of the very worst kind”.
Tim Loughton, the former children’s minister, said: “I will be very concerned if decisions have been made about the children's future that were based on misguided political correctness around ethnic considerations.
"Being a supporter of a mainstream political party is not a deal-breaker when it comes to looking after children if it means they can have a loving family home.”
The couple, who do not want to be named to avoid identifying the children they have fostered, are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire.
The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.
Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.
They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.
They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.
However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.
They were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.
The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’
“Then one of them said, 'Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.
“I’m sat there and I’m thinking, 'What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.
"I’ve got mixed race in my family. I said, 'I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party’.”
The wife said she told the social worker and agency official: “These kids have been loved. These kids have been treated no differently to our own children. We wouldn’t have taken these children on if we had been racist.
”The boy was taken away from them the following day and the two girls were removed at the end of that week."
The wife said the social worker told her: “We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of Ukip because it wouldn’t have been the right cultural match.”
The wife said she was left “bereft”, adding: “We felt like we were criminals. From having a little baby in my arms, suddenly there was an empty cot. I knew she wouldn’t have been here for ever, but usually there is a build-up of several weeks. I was in tears, although not in front of the social worker.”
Her husband added: “If we were moving the children on to happier circumstances we would be feeling warm and happy. To have it done like that, it’s beyond the pale.”
The couple said they had been “stigmatised and slandered”.
A spokesman for Rotherham metropolitan borough council said last night: “After a group of sibling children were placed with agency foster carers, issues were raised regarding the long-term suitability of the carers for these particular children. "With careful consideration, a decision was taken to move the children to alternative care. We continue to keep the situation under review.”
Ukip was once considered a single-issue fringe party but is now part of Britain’s political mainstream, with some recent national polls putting its support as high as nine per cent.
Its manifesto includes a demand for Britain to pull out of Europe and to curb immigration. It is also critical of multiculturalism and political correctness.
The party has three peers in the House of Lords, all defectors from the Conservatives, and 12 MEPs, although it has never won a seat in the Commons. It has a candidate in next week’s by-election in Rotherham.
Mr Farage said: “I am outraged politically and very upset for them. I think this is the kind of thing where we need some sort of decree from a Government minister that Ukip is not a racist party. “This is political prejudice of the very worst kind. It is just a bloody outrage.”
He pointed out that Ukip has a black candidate in the forthcoming Croydon North by-election.
David Goosey, the chairman of the trustees at Community Foster care, an independent fostering charity, said: “If this is accurate and there are no other extraneous matters that have concerned the authorities, then it is completely ridiculous and no self-respecting authority should be stopping people fostering on the grounds of their membership of Ukip.”
Nushra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, said: “My first question would be, does the local council have a clear equality policy so you can understand a bit more about the decision-making?“Otherwise it’s very difficult to fathom.”
No doubt they will now be criticised for feeling they now have a black mark against them.A couple had their three foster children taken away by a council on the grounds that their membership of the UK Independence Party meant that they supported “racist” policies.
The husband and wife, who have been fostering for nearly seven years, said they were made to feel like criminals when a social worker told them that their views on immigration made them unsuitable carers.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, the couple said they feared that there was a black mark against their name and they would not be able to foster again.
Last night campaigners representing foster parents described the decision as “ridiculous” and warned that it could deter other prospective foster parents from volunteering.
Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, described the actions of Rotherham borough council as “a bloody outrage” and “political prejudice of the very worst kind”.
Tim Loughton, the former children’s minister, said: “I will be very concerned if decisions have been made about the children's future that were based on misguided political correctness around ethnic considerations.
"Being a supporter of a mainstream political party is not a deal-breaker when it comes to looking after children if it means they can have a loving family home.”
The couple, who do not want to be named to avoid identifying the children they have fostered, are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire.
The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.
Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.
They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.
They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.
However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.
They were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.
The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’
“Then one of them said, 'Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.
“I’m sat there and I’m thinking, 'What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.
"I’ve got mixed race in my family. I said, 'I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party’.”
The wife said she told the social worker and agency official: “These kids have been loved. These kids have been treated no differently to our own children. We wouldn’t have taken these children on if we had been racist.
”The boy was taken away from them the following day and the two girls were removed at the end of that week."
The wife said the social worker told her: “We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of Ukip because it wouldn’t have been the right cultural match.”
The wife said she was left “bereft”, adding: “We felt like we were criminals. From having a little baby in my arms, suddenly there was an empty cot. I knew she wouldn’t have been here for ever, but usually there is a build-up of several weeks. I was in tears, although not in front of the social worker.”
Her husband added: “If we were moving the children on to happier circumstances we would be feeling warm and happy. To have it done like that, it’s beyond the pale.”
The couple said they had been “stigmatised and slandered”.
A spokesman for Rotherham metropolitan borough council said last night: “After a group of sibling children were placed with agency foster carers, issues were raised regarding the long-term suitability of the carers for these particular children. "With careful consideration, a decision was taken to move the children to alternative care. We continue to keep the situation under review.”
Ukip was once considered a single-issue fringe party but is now part of Britain’s political mainstream, with some recent national polls putting its support as high as nine per cent.
Its manifesto includes a demand for Britain to pull out of Europe and to curb immigration. It is also critical of multiculturalism and political correctness.
The party has three peers in the House of Lords, all defectors from the Conservatives, and 12 MEPs, although it has never won a seat in the Commons. It has a candidate in next week’s by-election in Rotherham.
Mr Farage said: “I am outraged politically and very upset for them. I think this is the kind of thing where we need some sort of decree from a Government minister that Ukip is not a racist party. “This is political prejudice of the very worst kind. It is just a bloody outrage.”
He pointed out that Ukip has a black candidate in the forthcoming Croydon North by-election.
David Goosey, the chairman of the trustees at Community Foster care, an independent fostering charity, said: “If this is accurate and there are no other extraneous matters that have concerned the authorities, then it is completely ridiculous and no self-respecting authority should be stopping people fostering on the grounds of their membership of Ukip.”
Nushra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, said: “My first question would be, does the local council have a clear equality policy so you can understand a bit more about the decision-making?“Otherwise it’s very difficult to fathom.”
Mr_B said:
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
Indeed, utterly spot on.I think Rotherham has much more pressing issues of actual failed child care with racial overtones that have been buried to worry about
Apologies for quoting myself from the "Rape Gang thread" but I just want to show how seriously the situation in Rotherham stinks.
FiF said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
FiF said:
Look, some of these officials have a lot to answer for. Rotherham council offered one girl who had been abused from the age of 12, lessons in Urdu and Punjabi to help her "understand."
A 13 year old girl was found drunk in a derelict house at 3am with a large group of adult males who had given her vodka. The girl was arrested for a public order offence, the men walked.
Speechless. Something stinks here.
if that's true it really is breathtakingA 13 year old girl was found drunk in a derelict house at 3am with a large group of adult males who had given her vodka. The girl was arrested for a public order offence, the men walked.
Speechless. Something stinks here.
who are the 'officials'? social services or police?
Laura Wilson was murdered for exposing the men who were abusing her and so she had brought shame on their families. Council officials had known for 6 years that she was at risk.
A 2010 report from the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board said the crimes had ‘cultural characteristics ... which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity’, but warned of ‘sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships’.
I'm ashamed that we, as a society, have allowed this to happen. To be honest I think that if society taken in the widest context had known this was going on then things would have been acted upon.
Zeeky said:
The LA actually has a legal duty to protect the children's culture and the children are in their care even though they are fostered.
The foster parents were trying to keep the children in touch with their culture, were getting he children to teach them their language.
This case is simply about RC making a decision based on an assumption about the couple based on their membership of UKIP and an incorrect understanding of UKIP's policies.
Unfortunately for RC social services dept they have a history which in some case raises considerable questions concerning their own competence and objectivity.
As regards prejudice, yes I admit in some ways I am prejudiced, I believe everyone is in some way. Having recognised this failing on my part, I take very great care not to act in any prejudiced way, sometimes this is possibly to the advantage of some and, indirectly, possibly the disadvantage of others.
Mojooo said:
jakesmith said:
I didn't understand why the Joyce woman said that the cultural wishes of the birth parents have to be respected. If they aren't fit parents & their children have to be removed why do their views count for anything?
Because the Court says so - she says so in the first few seconds of her videoI think it's a reasonable aim of the social workers to try and ensure that the children retain links with their cultural heritage.
However in this case they have dropped the ball big time. Over many years this department has proven to be not fit for purpose. Enough is enough.
The smokescreen the throw up time and again, plus trying to wind into the mess other authorities as being also at fault, including the police. This is all the while, time and time again, as is seen in all areas of the country, abdicatine their responsibilities, so the police, in particular, end up as the long stop. This is just no longer acceptable. By this time next week someone should either have been fired, or at the very least under suspension pending the outcome of enquiries and investigations.
JDRoest said:
FiF said:
I think it's a reasonable aim of the social workers to try and ensure that the children retain links with their cultural heritage.
Why? Obviously the foster parents themselves recognised the need, indeed trying to learn the language as but one part of that.
It could have been that the foster carers were those available at the time of need, and subsequently carers more suited became available at a later date. But it appears from both sides that this was not the case, it was simply that the issue of Ukip membership arose, somehow, and RC acted on the basis of incorrect and prejudiced assumptions.
Just to reiterate, the most important aim is to give the kids somewhere safe, warm, fed, clean, suitably clothed and a stable situation. Having done that, not let them get to the state where they are beginning to call the carers Mum and Dad, and then rip them out into what could turn out to be a situation of bouncing round various foster homes on the pretext of dealing with an issue that is of lesser importance than the issues raised in the first sentence this para. Nevertheless the cultural part is an issue that still needs consideration but imo way down the order of priority, RC got it badly wrong.
JDRoest said:
Turns out that his parents, a very nice white couple in the late 1960s adopted a young black child as their first child, and then had my friend and his brother a couple of years later.
Apologies for picking up on this post again but something struck me.Would this be allowed today?
My understanding, and it was definitely like this with Sheffield in the 80s with no reason to suspect it has changed today, if a childless couple wishes to be considered for adoption, then before they are put into the process they have to sign a legal agreement that they will cease all attempts to conceive. Not just temporarily either.
Now it may be the rules vary from authority to authority, but that was exactly the position as put forward by Sheffield council.
whoami said:
mattnunn said:
UKIP members are probably on the whole loonies and racists - as David Cameron once said.
Really?I did not know that.
Then No 10 said he'd never called every single member of UKIP a loony etc, typical weasel words arguing over a precise wording while the thrust of the point is unaltered.
Apologies for the Simon Heffer link
mattnunn said:
There is an interesting and wrong assumption through that article and across politics in general that UKIP are taking votes of the Tories rather than the BNP.
Here are the numbers| Year | Electorate | Voted | Cons | Labour | Lib Dem | Liberal | SDP | Alliance | UKIP | BNP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 45.6 | 29.7 | 10.6 | 8.6 | 6.8 | x | x | x | 0.92 | 0.56 |
| 2005 | 44.2 | 27.1 | 8.8 | 9.8 | 6.0 | x | x | x | 0.60 | 0.19 |
| 2001 | 44.4 | 26.4 | 8.4 | 10.7 | 4.7 | x | x | x | 0.40 | 0.05 |
| 1997 | 43.8 | 31.3 | 9.6 | 13.6 | 5.2 | x | x | x | 0.11 | 0.04 |
| 1992 | 43.3 | 33.6 | 14 | 11.6 | 6 | x | x | x | x | ? |
| 1987 | 43.2 | 32.5 | 13.8 | 10 | x | 4.2 | 3.2 | 7.3 | x | ? |
| 1983 | 42.2 | 30.7 | 13 | 8.5 | x | 4.2 | 3.6 | 7.8 | x | ? |
As UKIP founded in 1993 then earliest election was 1997, I don't have ready figures 1992 and before for BNP.
However seeing as, rather disturbingly, the BNP total vote has increased by more than the UKIP vote in the last election I'm not sure what to make of your last comment. Please expand on the basis for this allegation.
mattnunn said:
I give up
Oh dear what a pity, I presented you with the data and asked you to "Please expand on the basis for this allegation."But you couldn't and rambled on about second preferences and all things for which there is very little data and I didn't have time to ask you to prove your theory than impose on others to disprove yours before others handed you your arse back. Well done gents.
Run along little chap, door is that way--->>
On a very simple level though, the point is that the British are a mongrel nation, as is the British culture, formed by the arrival of people from all over the world by invitation, acceptance into security from danger and earlier by invasion. This has resulted in a much richer mix and life than without. Majority of British are very welcome for this to continue and appreciate this.
However what irritates people is, for example, when a group come in for whatever reason, into what they know is essentially a Christian country, be one a botherer or not, and then demand changes as they are offended by the word Christmas.
Is this a line in the sand? I don't know. Yet it seems that people do get upset by this, and get upset by the local council telling it has to be Winter Festival or some such and their village Christmas market that has been going on for years racist.
However what irritates people is, for example, when a group come in for whatever reason, into what they know is essentially a Christian country, be one a botherer or not, and then demand changes as they are offended by the word Christmas.
Is this a line in the sand? I don't know. Yet it seems that people do get upset by this, and get upset by the local council telling it has to be Winter Festival or some such and their village Christmas market that has been going on for years racist.
BliarOut said:
eccles said:
Whilst I don't agree in any way with what this council has done, I can't help thinking social services are caught between a rock and a hard place. Rarely are these cases black and white (no pun intended!), and they get castigated if they don't take action, and then when they do take action they get ripped to pieces.
It seems to be a thankless job with very high case loads not enough staff or funding, and we never seem to hear about the many good jobs they've done, only these odd anomalies that hit the headlines.
They're just a bunch of inept box tickers these days. No longer fit for purpose.It seems to be a thankless job with very high case loads not enough staff or funding, and we never seem to hear about the many good jobs they've done, only these odd anomalies that hit the headlines.
Latest status appears that Rotherham council are alleged to have accused the foster parents of releasing confidential information about the children, foster parents deny this and threaten to sue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9759...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9759...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff