All the leaders of the mainstream parties have piled in saying it's unacceptable, it's clear that there is nothing more to this case, just an utterly stupid council.
UKIP Foster Parents Screwed
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
All the leaders of the mainstream parties have piled in saying it's unacceptable, it's clear that there is nothing more to this case, just an utterly stupid council.
I response to what someone said earlier about UKIP opposing gay marriage, the reason for that is reasonable (not that I agree with it :/)
They oppose gay marriage because that would mean that it would be possible for gay people to prosecute religious institutions that were opposed to gays marriage for not marrying them. UKIP are attempting to protect religious institutions who have the retarded and backwards view that gays can't marry. They do however support civil partnerships which give the same rights/benefits as a hero sexual marriage.
That's what I understood from their policy page anyway.
Ps - hurfdurf, WTF are you on about?
They oppose gay marriage because that would mean that it would be possible for gay people to prosecute religious institutions that were opposed to gays marriage for not marrying them. UKIP are attempting to protect religious institutions who have the retarded and backwards view that gays can't marry. They do however support civil partnerships which give the same rights/benefits as a hero sexual marriage.
That's what I understood from their policy page anyway.
Ps - hurfdurf, WTF are you on about?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
And your right its probably 10,000x as much, no go areas that are predominantly white. I can name 20 areas within 5 miles a radius of me where it would be a no go area for minorities.
Exactly it's not any better, why highlight it only when it's a minority doing such?
A) I think the claims are dubious to begin with, where are these no go areas? For example in Bradford (Bradistan) in Manningham, which is a heavy Pakistani/Bangladeshi population, you’ll see pretty much a mixture of all people of all colours. By no means is it a no go area.
B) I would say it’s not doubly wrong, i would say it’s understandable. Immigrants coming from other countries, to a foreign land, no families, no communities etc, it’s understandable why they feel more comfortable living within communities they can associate with. Furthermore i would say the opposite to you, it’s doubly wrong when it’s done by the locals, considering they have been educated and brought up in democracy, equal opportunities and freedom to all.
C) White fright
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
"Excuse me sir, but your not integrating properly. If you come to our country, we expect you and the people closest to you to live at least 20 miles apart from each other. That way people won't crap themselves when they walk through your area, ok?"
Except with a lot of these segregated communities it's entirely by choice. They have separate traditions, and separate standards, which can sometimes be at odds with British values and ways of life. And the problem is when they decide that they should establish communities to promote the traditions and practices of a foreign land here in Britain. And then start "enforcing" those practices in that community.
And I know if I was going to move somewhere - and in fairness I'd limit myself to places that were western style democracies - I'd want to immerse myself in that country. But I'd only move somewhere like Germany, Canada, etc; and not somewhere like Saudi Arabia.
None of the things above make me racist. I'm part Indian and part Polish myself. But separatism is not something we should be condoning, or excusing. Britain is a very welcoming country for the most part - there is simply no need to separate yourself unless by choice.
In which case I'm racist and so is my Asian wife. Hmmm I'm doing this racist thing wrong somehow.
Are you trying to say Asians can't be racist?
Not only is that simply not true, it's racist to make sweeping statements about Asians like that.
It doesn't work like that. As has been repeatedly pointed out, many people belonging to obviously racist groups like the BNP have black and Asian friends, just as gay-bashers sometimes have friends that they know are gay. Friendship, love and racism are all irrational. There really is nothing unusual in the idea of a bigot (please note: this is a general point, not aimed at the couple in question) loving children who are from the racial groups that they want removed.
Marriage just a isn't a religious ceremony, it's been around (in various forms) longer than Christianity.
I find it hilarious that people in this thread are in such deep denial about the average UKIP voter, seems I've touched a nerve somewhat.
I mean just look at some of the mind-numbingly stupid none-evidence based policies they have.
"Introduce a ‘three strikes and you’re out’
policy to deal with persistent offenders and
make our streets safer for the public"
"Ensure sentences mean what they say: life
must mean life"
"Spend an extra 40% on defence annually,
another 1% of GDP"
"Allow county referendums to reverse the hunting
ban at the local level" (even thought it has no public support)
"Animal Welfare
UKIP believes all animals that share our planet
deserve to be treated compassionately by
humans and should be spared unnecessary
suffering." ^ Epic, I can't really add more to this one.
"UKIP believes in civic nationalism, which is
open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to
identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious
background. We reject the “blood and
soil” ethnic nationalism of extremist parties.
UKIP opposes multiculturalism and political
correctness, and promotes uniculturalism -
aiming to create a single British culture embracing
all races and religions." - hardly sounds like a party which supports different cultures, just an attitude of "It's OK to be black/asian as look as you act white"
I realise that marriage isn't just religious, I'm Just saying that UKIP have an understandable reason not to back gay marriage as it seems they're trying to protect religious institutes from being forced to marry people they don't want to.
As for:
I honestly don't know what's wrong with that. The way I see it is that if you come to this country and seek citizenship, yes, bring your own customs, but follow ours too. I think every citizen of this country should obey the laws and not try to enforce, ones that come from their cultures through any means other than democracy.
What's wrong with their animal welfare policy? (Apart from that it directly contradictory to their stupid hunting policy)
The first 3 policies in bold seem to just be things to try and get the public on their side.
As for:
I honestly don't know what's wrong with that. The way I see it is that if you come to this country and seek citizenship, yes, bring your own customs, but follow ours too. I think every citizen of this country should obey the laws and not try to enforce, ones that come from their cultures through any means other than democracy.
What's wrong with their animal welfare policy? (Apart from that it directly contradictory to their stupid hunting policy)
The first 3 policies in bold seem to just be things to try and get the public on their side.
This is exactly why I can't understand the decision at all. If these parents are so racist, then why would they choose to foster children of an ethnic minority?
Surely forcefully removing the children from what appears to be a loving and stable home (with all the upheaval that entails) based purely on the social worker's opinion that UKIP supporters = racist is more damaging than leaving them there in the first place?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
There's something mildly amusing about a party which professes that it despises the close ties with Europe getting the majority of their power because of European elections.
I'm not sure that it is part of any proposals that I've heard of that religious institutes should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies they don't wish to. What has been proposed is that the title of "marriage" should be allowed to be applied legally to civil unions rather than just colloquially as it is now and that any religious institutes that are so inclined should be allowed to perform same sex marriages. That doesn't sound so terribly unfair or onerous to me especially when you consider as elmarko1234 has pointed out marriage is not originally a religious ceremony - it stems from civil unions and although it may have taken on religious connotations in the minds of many it can still be performed by a civil registrar.
If the proposals were that religious institutes must perform same sex marriages regardless of their views then I couldn't support that - right to practice your religion freely (Article 9 ECHR and all that jazz) but that does work both ways and religion shouldn't be allowed to block same sex marriage if it isn't directly impinging on them.
I think it's because domestic policy has been lacking up until recently, therefore people couldn't bring themself to vote for them where it arguably matters, GE's, as opposed to the EE where people are more likely perhaps to vote on a single issue if not party lines.
Perhaps the UK electorate wants to stuff a parliament it evidently does not want with politicians who do not want it either?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I think it's quite likely that is the reason for the vote which is why it's amusing for me rather than ironic or anything else. You could make an argument about dismantling an organisation from within being more effective than an assault from without but I don't know if that has been part of a plan or just a coincidence that may yet bear fruit for them.
Why are you bringing colour into it? Are you suggesting that black/asian people can't be British?
Explain to me how you came to that conclusion.
As you you either haven't read the thread or reading comprehension isn't your strong-point.
Racism isn't just about skin colour.
If I adopted two Asian children & had the attitude - "Ill bring them up like good white folk, none of that dirty foreign culture will be in them" - then it's entirely possible to be racist & still bring up children of an ethnic minority.
I agree they should follow our laws - also that customs/traditions which cause objective harm should be outlawed - but I don't think people should be forced to act British.
I'm just pointing out the party is one of the worst cases of pandering to the masses - (we support animal welfare, we support fox-hunting) - the party is a joke.
As above.
Last edited:
Agreed, but if you refer to the article which dowie quoted (and which I requoted), this doesn't appear to be the case in this instance:
That doesn't sound like someone intent on suppressing the children's cultural background to me. If Rotheram had come up with some evidence that these parents were intentionally skewing the cultural upbringing of the kids then fine, but until then I maintain that taking them away simply because they choose to support UKIP is unjustifiable.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 437
what they should have done really was just deport the foreign kids that they were fostering