Foster parents have kids removed by council for being UKIP

Post Reply New Topic

That's not an accurate statement, these children are white, they are Eastern European.

Below are points from UKIPs immigration policy.

1. An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement
2. After the five-year freeze, a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia to be introduced
3. An aspiration to ensure that future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people a year
4. Regain control of UK borders by leaving the EU
5. Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights
6. Ensure British benefits are available only to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years
7. End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government


I think point 6 has a major part to play in the reasons why Rotherham council made their decision, because if UKIP got in power (very unlikely) then children such as these would be discriminate against purely on the fact they are immigrants.

For me personally, I consider point 6 & 7 to have very similar connotations to "Das Volk" within the Nazi party of 1934 "Germans people living under continual cultural attack from Judeo-Bolshevism". Just replace Germans for English and Judeo-Bolshevism for Eastern European.

So for me personally whose aunty was a survivor of Belsen concentration camp, I have major concerns with UKIP.

However I still consider the removal of the children from these foster parents to be wrong and as with yourself being a member of UKIP is in no way suggesting that you or these foster parents agree or are aware of these Naziesque policies of UKIPs.

Britain is a mongrel nation with influences from around the world and I would personally like to keep it that way. Multiculturalism has played a major part in Britain’s history from having foreign kings & queens to our national dish changing from fish & chips to curry.

Surely the council should welcome supporters of UKIP? If UKIP policies were put in place there wouldn't be as many immigrant children for them to potentially have to find foster homes for. This would save valuable funds in these financially difficult times.

ps Sarcasm.

You nearly had me then.....

Where exactly are the children now?
Have they been kept together?
What is happening with the parents?
Why are they unable to care for their children?
Dumb? Mean? Drugs?
I am in America, and these are usually the reasons.
Are they in custody for abuse, or what?

Sylkat

I had a really long post written down and the bloody computer refreshed on me! I'm really pissed off and I haven't got time to type this all again as I need to be in bed as I have a flight to catch tomorrow.

The evils of multiculturalism? Where have i heard that before?

In other words UKIP are little more than the BNP-lite.

You could barely fit a cigarette paper between the two.

Guilt by association.

There are a lot of nasty UKIP members, but they aren't the BNP.

Here are examples of homophobia and xenophobia by UKIP candidates, MEPs and activists:
http://www.cherwell.org/news/topstories ... omophobia-
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/05/u ... dick-soho/
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2012/1 ... n-croydon/

Here is a study on tolerance within UKIP: http://www.channel4.com/media/c4-news/i ... 287%29.pdf
It provides BNP figures for comparison, which shows that UKIP members are less likely to hold extreme views (i.e. "strongly agree" with a statement) but just as likely to agree ("strongly agree"+"agree" for the BNP and UKIP was generally similar for right wing opinions). UKIP was more tolerant across the board than the BNP, but a significant proportion of UKIP supporters hold xenophobic

Just for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole article (values in brackets percentage strongly agree+agree):

91.2% of UKIP supporters think young people do not respect British values (60.8+30.4- BNP 69.5+20.3)
80.5% of UKIP supporters support the death penalty for some crimes (59.9+20.6- BNP 76+11.7)
57.1% of UKIP supporters support censorship (23.3+33.8- BNP 26.8+29.7)
No surprise to anyone that UKIP supporters are much more likely to be anti-welfare, given the BNP is essentially left wing economically.

38% of UKIP supporters thought immigration was the most important issue, compared to 52% of BNP supporters. UKIP scored much lower, which is good.
22% of BNP supporters thought Muslims in British society were the biggest issue, compared to 8% of UKIP supporters, which is very pleasing.
Also, the people conducting the survey say UKIP voters are concerned about many issues, whereas the BNP supporters are generally only concerned about one or two issues, but very concerned.

When it came to tolerance, UKIP supporters were much more tolerant than BNP supporters, despite having similar opinions on domestic issues (like the death penalty).
35.3% of UKIP supporters think immigrants should be "sent home" even if they don't break the law, which is a minority (though 27.6% neither agreed nor disagreed). This is compared to 67.9% of BNP supporters.
Only 22.3% of UKIP supporters think black people are less intelligent than white people, and presumably many of them confused "intelligence" with "education" or something similar.
50.6% of UKIP voters thought immigrants were the cause of most crime (studies show this is not true: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28732/ )

Then we have tolerance with respect to Muslims. 82% of BNP supporters said they would be "bothered a lot" by the construction of a Mosque in their community, and 10.2% would be "bothered a little" (total 90.2%). This compares to 63.8% and 19.7% of UKIP supporters (total 83.5%) and a national average of 30.7% and 24.2% (total 54.9%). 85% of UKIP supporters think "Islam poses a serious danger to Western civilisation". UKIP supporters are clearly more tolerant than BNP supporters, but there is still an undercurrent of intolerance that needs to be solved.

Finally, UKIP members preferred Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson to Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.

Second survey: http://www.academia.edu/245067/Strategi ... _Elections

Page 35

77% of UKIP supporters think immigrants get preference for council housing places (this is not the case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8137408.stm )
32% think immigrants responsible for most crime (not true, see above)
22% think employers should favour white immigrants- highest of the mainstream parties but lower than BNP
17% think black people less intelligent- same as Conservatives
18% think non-whites are not as British (higher than mainstream parties, lower than BNP)
64% think Islam is a serious danger to Western civilisation (next: Cons, 49%)
41% against civil partnerships (BNP 43%, Cons 28%, Lab 18%, Lib 15%)

So yes, as I stated, UKIP are not nearly as bad as the BNP. Between a slight majority and a noticeable minority have some problems with prejudice, and it is a party which attracts people with those views more than the others, but it is a much more tolerant party than the BNP. A significant percentage (usually a majority) of UKIP members disagrees with those statements.

The children were apparently taken care of with kindness and affection by people who seem to have genuinely wanted to provide a home for them.
I do not believe that hungry, cold, scared kids really discuss their foster mother's voting record, they just want hot soup, a warm bed, and clean sheets.
I'll bet that they even got 'Good Night' kisses while they were in that home, and, possibly, hugs to go along with that.
These are little kids.
Why can't they have someone to care about them, for once in their sad lives?
May these peanut-brained politicians come back as Sudanese orphans in their next lives!

I mean it.

Sylkat

Steady on! Children's homes aren't great, but they'll still have hot foot, a warm bed, clean sheets, and staff and social workers who will look out for them.

UKIP oppose "blood and soil" nationalism so they are not like the BNP.

UKIP oppose Islamization. The BNP just use "criticism of Islam" as a cover for their hatred of brown people.

It seems to me that a person's membership in a political party falls far short of the evidence required to give a public servant "reasonable grounds to believe" that the person is unfit to act as a foster parent. (Let alone proof on the balance of probabilities).

From an Administrative Law perspective, I see this decision as highly problematic, and I would be astonished if any court--were it given the chance--would find this decision to fall within the statutory authority of the decision maker.

Did anyone ASK the kids how they felt about being removed from this home?
Has anyone ASKED the kids what their feelings are about any of this?

Sylkat

The link below mention legal advice regarding the children's "cultural and ethnic needs".

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

I think that this advice may determine how much blame for this mess falls an individual and how much falls on the current system.

I simply haven't been keeping up with this case as, frankly, I am on holiday. That said, the children's cultural and ethnic needs WERE being met as they went to a Polish-language school. To add to that, this couple had apparently taken on some very difficult cases in the past with no complaints. I think it's just a clear case of political discrimination (with a side order of racism, naturally) on behalf of the council. A lot of kids are without homes due to the Apartheid-like policies of these dickheads.

As for the criticism about some UKIP candidates (like Winston McKenzie) being homophobic: that's a very fair and reasonable criticism to make, although Jamaicans are not particularly known for their tolerance towards gays; homosexuality is illegal in Jamaica). I hope the party bin him - he's a liability.

As for the death penalty - I believe there is no UKIP policy on it. Some are pro-DP (Batten; Nuttall), others are against (Farage). Opinion polls on the DP in wider UK society are very evenly matched. Personally, I am very much anti-capital punishment.

Some further developments in the UKIP fostering scandal:

And it just keeps on turning...

Dear Tequila, Were the Slovak or Roma family supposedly abusing these children?
Were they underfed?
Were there valid, documented complaints from neighbors, family friends, teachers?
Had any of the children made repeated comments referring to fear in their home, or had any visible bruising?
I am truly curious what started all this.

Sylkat