Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Foster parents have kids removed by council for being UKIP

Page 1 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

23 Nov 2012, 7:07 pm

Quote:
Foster parents 'stigmatised and slandered’ for being members of Ukip

[b]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.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Nov 2012, 7:13 pm

Reason 1 why no one should publicly reveal who they vote for...


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

23 Nov 2012, 7:18 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Reason 1 why no one should publicly reveal who they vote for...


Who actually told them? It's none of their business and, on the face of it, sounds like political bullying to me.

I'd say that if they voted for the BNP, or the Communists, or anyone else as long as they were suitable.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

23 Nov 2012, 7:18 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Reason 1 why no one should publicly reveal who they vote for...


I don't think you have a choice in California and some parts of the world


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

23 Nov 2012, 7:32 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Reason 1 why no one should publicly reveal who they vote for...


I don't think you have a choice in California and some parts of the world

Not only are ballots still secret in California, but there is nothing preventing you from casting as many as you want (I don't approve of that practice).

Voter registration is not secret, but I've never heard of anyone being singled out here despite DHS' paranoia of third parties.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Nov 2012, 7:32 pm

UKIP probably do have some nasty thinly veiled racist tendencies but as a reason for social service intervention, this is beyond screwed up.

I would just add though, this did happen under the tories watch, not the left of centre.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

24 Nov 2012, 3:06 pm

thomas81 wrote:
I would just add though, this did happen under the tories watch, not the left of centre.

Are you sure? Rotherham is Labour controlled.

I can understand the reasoning- I wouldn't want to be raised by someone who didn't think I should be there in the first place- but really, the alternative is a children's home.

The quotes from Farage here are hilarious: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

24 Nov 2012, 3:51 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I can understand the reasoning- I wouldn't want to be raised by someone who didn't think I should be there in the first place- but really, the alternative is a children's home.


Huh? If they didn't want the foster children to be there, why did they accept them into their home :scratch:?

If this was Denmark, I wouldn't rule out criminal charges being filed against the public officials.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

24 Nov 2012, 3:53 pm

And this was based purely on political opinion?

Yeah, screw that.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

24 Nov 2012, 5:24 pm

GGPViper wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I can understand the reasoning- I wouldn't want to be raised by someone who didn't think I should be there in the first place- but really, the alternative is a children's home.


Huh? If they didn't want the foster children to be there, why did they accept them into their home :scratch:?

You misunderstand me.

These people support a party that would stop the parents of these children getting into this country. They don't believe the likes of these children should ever have come to be in this country.

The crucial difference between UKIP and the BNP is that UKIP is perfectly happy for these people to be accommodated once they are here, unlike the BNP who would be frothing at the mouth and want them deported. But still, I can understand (though not agree with) people feeling uneasy about asking some people who seem to be anti-immigration to look after the children of immigrants.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

24 Nov 2012, 5:36 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I can understand the reasoning- I wouldn't want to be raised by someone who didn't think I should be there in the first place- but really, the alternative is a children's home.


Huh? If they didn't want the foster children to be there, why did they accept them into their home :scratch:?

You misunderstand me.


No, I don't.

The_Walrus wrote:
These people support a party that would stop the parents of these children getting into this country. They don't believe the likes of these children should ever have come to be in this country.

The crucial difference between UKIP and the BNP is that UKIP is perfectly happy for these people to be accommodated once they are here, unlike the BNP who would be frothing at the mouth and want them deported. But still, I can understand (though not agree with) people feeling uneasy about asking some people who seem to be anti-immigration to look after the children of immigrants.


The couple mentioned was simply acting as foster parents. *NO* evidence has been provided that they have neglected their role as foster parents.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

24 Nov 2012, 5:47 pm

GGPViper wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I can understand the reasoning- I wouldn't want to be raised by someone who didn't think I should be there in the first place- but really, the alternative is a children's home.


Huh? If they didn't want the foster children to be there, why did they accept them into their home :scratch:?

You misunderstand me.


No, I don't.

But you clearly do!

This is at least the second time you have claimed to not be misunderstanding me, whilst asking a question or making a comment that makes no sense.

If you did not misunderstand me, then why did you need me to clarify?
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
These people support a party that would stop the parents of these children getting into this country. They don't believe the likes of these children should ever have come to be in this country.

The crucial difference between UKIP and the BNP is that UKIP is perfectly happy for these people to be accommodated once they are here, unlike the BNP who would be frothing at the mouth and want them deported. But still, I can understand (though not agree with) people feeling uneasy about asking some people who seem to be anti-immigration to look after the children of immigrants.


The couple mentioned was simply acting as foster parents. *NO* evidence has been provided that they have neglected their role as foster parents.

Yes, I know these things.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

24 Nov 2012, 5:53 pm

GGPViper wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I can understand the reasoning- I wouldn't want to be raised by someone who didn't think I should be there in the first place- but really, the alternative is a children's home.


Huh? If they didn't want the foster children to be there, why did they accept them into their home :scratch:?

If this was Denmark, I wouldn't rule out criminal charges being filed against the public officials.


The council have confirmed that this decision was to do with them being UKIP members and only to do with them being UKIP members. They actually said that their record of care was exemplary for all the children they have had in their care.

Here is the head honcho of the children's care services being interviewed on BBC Radio 4 today (along with Nigel Farage - the leader of UKIP - being interviewed and other bits and pieces):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvB3hxQGiAE[/youtube]

It's the typical bigotry and intolerance you'd come to expect from left-wing councils.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

24 Nov 2012, 5:55 pm

Tequila wrote:

It's the typical bigotry and intolerance you'd come to expect from left-wing councils.

Well this is at least better than Farage's quote, saying it was typical Labour despite the Labour party calling for an investigation.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

24 Nov 2012, 5:58 pm

Lessons will be learnt, mistakes have been made, we're very sorry, it won't happen again, it was one lone operative, blah blah, blabety blah, boo hoo hoo.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

24 Nov 2012, 5:59 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I can understand the reasoning- I wouldn't want to be raised by someone who didn't think I should be there in the first place- but really, the alternative is a children's home.


Huh? If they didn't want the foster children to be there, why did they accept them into their home :scratch:?

You misunderstand me.


No, I don't.

But you clearly do!


No. I. Don't.

From the original article:

"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.".