Not really, now more facts have come out it seems they were good parents and the kids liked them!
UKIP Foster Parents Screwed
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
Not really, now more facts have come out it seems they were good parents and the kids liked them!
A single social worker wouldn't have the authority to do this by themselves. If it was just one (or a small group) social worker that made this decision then the council should have condemned it straight away, its a completely idiotic and indefensible position.
Social workers seem to be on a planet of their own. My auntie used to look after some Iranian children, and was told by social services to remove the crucifix that was hanging on the wall in her lounge as it might offend their beliefs. The Iranian kids were Christian.
I think most of people voting for UKIP want them to be slightly different party than they really are. I understand that most of their voters would like to see them as party of the centre, with eurosceptic, pro patriotic policy. But that's not what they are. Their manifesto states that the party opposes multiculturalism. The party is also openly anti-islamist. UKIP is also in opposition to same-sex marriage as admitted by their representatives. The manifest is very carefully constructed to not give you any impressions of fringe movement. Now, there is nothing illegal or punishable about supporting separatist movements, nativism, being against multiculturalism in Britain and pro secularism. That's not even the point of this discussion. But let's not pretend that labeling UKIP as xenophobic is particularly unfair, just because they don't march with torches and hoods on asylum centers. Of course they are xenophobic. Every anti immigration, nativist movement is so, by default.
But most of you think that being xenophobic makes one equal to racist, and that's just wrong. You can be from ethnic minority and be xenophobic. In fact, in my experience, massive chunk of first generation ethnic minorities in Britain, especially those clustering into mini communities, are, in fact, en-large raving xenophobes themselves. The moment another group of Romanians, Turks or Ukrainians start packing their suitcases and booking RyanAir flights to Stansted, I bet you Xmas pudding that you will find as many Indians from Whitehall, Poles from Acton and Jamaicans from Camden equally alarmed as Nigels in Stoke-on-Trent, Rogers in Leeds and Dereks in Oldham about "that lot coming to steal our jobs, work around the clock for minimum wage and sleep 10 per bedroom in rotation".
UKIP are not centre right, by their own admission. They formed formed right-wing grouping called Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) in European Parliament with other nationalist and separatist parties from mainland continent. But once again, you shouldn't really be that jumpy about "right wing" term. It's misinterpretation that many Brits are guilty of. There is nothing wrong with being right wing. It doesn't make them blood thirsty extremists. And it doesn't put them in the same bag as nazis. Nazis were extreme left.
Xenophobic and racist terms got mixed up in your post. But I have a cool "semi related" anecdote anyway - there was a Spanish gentlemen running from BNP for London mayor in last elections. And not just born in Spain, proper Spaniard, with strong accent and everything. Only moved to UK in 1989. The man didn't see anything particularly clashing in supporting BNP. He strongly believed in his "close the gates and kick them out" policy. To the rest of us, it looked like he meant "close the gates behind me and kick the rest of them out", but what he probably really meant was - the BNP as he knew it, the BNP that elected him to be their candidate - was just purely racist, without being xenophobic. They didn't care that he was from abroad, as long as he was the "right" colour. The UKIP is exactly the other way round.
Last edited:
The belief that a populous is best served with tight immigration controls isn't xenophobic by default at all. It is simply the equivalent of having a tight pre-employment vetting process.
This is most certainly true though, the party has huge internal divisions over policy.
Anti-EU sentiments include the belief it erodes democracy and sovereignty, that its bad economics, as well as for their views on immigration. Its pretty rare to find a voter that agrees with all of them.
I am white British, married to a Pakistani girl born in Uganda, with two mixed race children... And we are both considering voting UKIP at the next election. So work that one out.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,705
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Don't worry, Ed Milliband is on the case -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2012/nov/24/ukip-fostering-children-ed-miliband-video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2012/nov/24/ukip-fostering-children-ed-miliband-video
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
Ironic. Maybe the council worker needs to think about her own values, maybe not.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
gettothechopper;232326[QUOTE said:
I'm being ridiculous ? I don't think I am.
If i remember rightly it takes more than one social worker to sanction removal of fostered children.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 1,768
If the couple concerned are as racist as the council suggest, why would they choose to care for immigrant children in the first place?
I think people need to realise that the council have a legal duty to ensure the children's cultural needs are being met under the Childrens Act, 1989 & 2004 and the framework for the assessment of children in need.
If you actually listen to the interview, they didnt just removed them because of UKIP they placed them in foster care where these needs will be met, maintaining cultural and original ethnic upbrining is crucial to child development. So perhaps before branding the social workers idiots, people need to actually listen to what is said. Social work invokes complex practice decisions, as said on BBC this morning they said it was a practice decision and not political.
For the record UKIP want to dismantle multi-culturalism and as such this is borderline racist, UKIP is just a legitimate vehicle for the far right. Yet again the retarded media have only focused on one issue, it is very unlikely that this was the only issue involved in the decision to place the children elsewhere
If you actually listen to the interview, they didnt just removed them because of UKIP they placed them in foster care where these needs will be met, maintaining cultural and original ethnic upbrining is crucial to child development. So perhaps before branding the social workers idiots, people need to actually listen to what is said. Social work invokes complex practice decisions, as said on BBC this morning they said it was a practice decision and not political.
For the record UKIP want to dismantle multi-culturalism and as such this is borderline racist, UKIP is just a legitimate vehicle for the far right. Yet again the retarded media have only focused on one issue, it is very unlikely that this was the only issue involved in the decision to place the children elsewhere
Last edited:
No, they shouldn't.
What with the Baby P fiasco I imagine there is a lot of pressure riding on social workers, one wrong move and you potentially have a dead kid on your hands, move in the other direction too far and you're taking kids away from good parents.
Ideally what needs to be set up is a decent appeals process where a better judgement from a larger group of people can happen.
All the Londoners I talk to think multiculturalism has failed. It's become a justification for establishing communities which are hostile to outsiders. Ie there are places in London where you dare not enter unless you are Asian, etc.
Thankfully there's nothing like that down here.
But if that's the case, it's no wonder that people are turning to UKIP and the Tories (who also say multiculturalism has failed).
I can certainly see the difference between that and being racist.
The Social Care Institute seems to have a few general thoughts about what this means. Basically, that minority kids in foster care need to be in a position where they can feel free to ask questions about the ideas of social identity, about what it means to be non-native or non-white in our society and about how to position themselves to understand and respond to the various social stigmas that exist for people that aren't white anglo-saxon protestants.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that anti-multiculturalism is going to have a challenge when it comes to being helpful to kids exploring these kinds of issues.
Seriously guys, do you honestly think the press are reporting this 100% accurately? There's nothing the UK media likes more than bashing social workers.
You might not, but some of us aren't cowards and will walk where ever, its all about how you carry yourself and not going in with a victim mentality, learn to stand and bang.
And there is nothing you like more than going on rant about something you don't really understand. These people were temporary carers whilst a permanent place was being found. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Your seem to prove that theory every time you post.
And I see you ducked the question about discrimination ...
Learn to stand and bang ... grow up. You might think you're a hard lad because you've done a bit of MMA but you've also posted, on here, what weight division you'd fight in and if you think you'd seriously stand a chance against a bigger bloke or a number of people you're more daft than I think you are.
Exactly this is the problem, there wont be any fair reporting on this, and its likely when an investigation is published they will pull out all the bad points.
Social Workers make very complex decisions, the team who made this decision will have reflected so much before taking action and thought it through fully, there must be so much more to it then the face value reporting.
SW's really are in a no win situation most of the time as you are often damned if you do and damned if you dont.
Terrible.
So when does being a member of a non fringe party mean you can'tgive a child a good life ?
Besides, kid may hate Europe anyway depending on the reasons why it is in care!
What about some religious? Or atheist? What if they instill their views.. Heaven forbid
So when does being a member of a non fringe party mean you can'tgive a child a good life ?
Besides, kid may hate Europe anyway depending on the reasons why it is in care!
What about some religious? Or atheist? What if they instill their views.. Heaven forbid
They should have made the decision for the right reason. They should have found evidence that the couple would have posed a risk in the short time frame they were caring. They should not base their decision on assuming individuals bear the characteristics of a group when that groups beliefs are being misrepresented.
Yes, social workers make tough decisions but they often make pretty poor ones too. This is one of those poor decisions. Or do they get it right every single time.