Foster parents have kids removed by council for being UKIP

Post Reply New Topic

We simply don't know. However, social services have been known in the past for snatching children away (not only Slovakian or other children from Central/Eastern Europe, but native-born children as well) from perfectly decent families, including in cases where social services themselves say that the parents are perfectly decent people, but the state is taking them anyway. As said in that newspaper report, even before this UKIP fostering scandal broke, there has been protests in Slovakia about this. See here from September of this year:





From the sounds of it, no. When the scandal broke, Rotherham Council promised that there would be a report on the case the following Monday. It's been three weeks since it broke.

To add to this: the children have been split up as well, which rubs salt in the wound.



This was a temporary foster placement. And, from what I can gather (because the family and the children in this case are strictly anonymous, and rightly so) the answer to this is no. There is not the slightest hint or suggestion - not even from this council (who are, as I've said earlier, have recorded cases where their spineless political correctness lead to massive and wilful neglect of vulnerable children) - that these Slovakian gypsy children or indeed any other children where in any way underfed, malnourished, not looked after, mistreated, abused or anything like that. None at all, and this foster couple are known to have a very good record in their field by social services in Rotherham.

I wish there were more to this story, and that the council are actually right. If they aren't (and I suspect they aren't, which is why they're so utterly silent now), then it says that there's something very, very rotten indeed in social services in this country.



From what I've read, no. Nothing at all like that.



The bigotry of social services?

Dear Tequila,
As far as I am able to understand, these children were loved and treated well by their family.
Then they were removed for unclear reasons, which have never been disclosed.
Then they were placed with a foster family with an excellent history of taking good care of children.
Then, they were removed from THIS caring family,
AGAIN with no reasons justifying the emotional pain they are putting these children through?!

To Whoever is making these decisions:

I wish you explosive diarrhea for a week!

Sylkat

There has been no explanation by the council for removing the couple from the Slovak gypsy family. If there is, it should be known. I don't think that Slovaks or any non-UK citizens should simply have the automatic right to come and live here, but equally they should absolutely not have their children taken from them if there is no good reason. If this family are actually involved in crime or begging (not unknown for gypsies from Eastern Europe), or they're abusing their children or using them as part of a scam, then that should be taken into account. If none of this is true, though, they absolutely should not be removing them from their parents.



True.



Yes, this is quite true. This foster family had been well-thought of and had taken care of some very difficult cases, children that the council probably desperately needed people to take care of. There definitely is a shortage of foster parents in Britain for numerous reasons, most of them down to the bureaucratic inflexibility and obsessively authoritarian nature of councils that involve asking prospective parents all kinds of invasive and lengthy questions, plus some councils actively lying to prospective foster parents about the true nature of the children they're taking on. The racist selection policy of social services also has quite a lot to do with a lot of kids not getting loving parents, as SS have an obsession with placing children with their cognisant ethnic group, even if that leads to them languishing in 'care' for years.

The sole reason for them being taken away is because this couple are former Labour voters who have deserted the party. This is becoming increasingly common in Labour areas in Northern England, as they see that UKIP has their interests at heart more than the big three.



It was a temporary placement, not a permanent one.



And splitting the children up after the whole scandal blew up too.



I wish them the food poisoning I got in Northern Cyprus on my 21st birthday. Fivefold.

I don't think it is "racist" to want to control immigration, even though I'm more of an open borders person myself.

But if I were British, I'd vote UKIP over the EU-loving quangocrats any day of the week.

Open borders could actually work, but only if all the people shared more or less the same values, and there was no welfare state. There are flaws in the concept, though - if you have open borders, you simply can't deport any criminals from anywhere, because, in effect, we're all now "one unit", or one country. Also, if you had undesirable elements that wanted to emigrate to one country, you wouldn't be able to keep them out. I think what you'd end up with is poor people coming to richer areas and then the richer areas having trouble with those people who have less-refined values.

It's pretty much the only refuge now.

The left-wing environmentalist types can vote Green.
The racists can vote BNP (although that's imploding).
The Islamic types can vote Respect.