Forum menu
Apart from Zulu's point, which is well made, race and culture are not the same thing and so aren't incompatible. You can be multi-ethnic and still be mono-cultural if the values of that single culture support pluralism for example, or tolerance of different people.
Nail. Head. Take France for instance, they concider themselves French, that is there culture, you can be whatever religion you like but culturally you are French. This is not a bad thing IMO.
I am not sure anyone is saying they cannot foster just that they may not be the best foster parents for these children.
Actually I think that might be true. I think I heard on radio four that the council had said there was no problem with this family continuing to be a foster family.
Might be for example
On February 23, 2005 the French law on colonialism was an act passed by the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) conservative majority, which imposed on high-school (lycée) teachers to teach the "positive values" of colonialism to their students, in particular in North Africa (article 4). The law created a public uproar and opposition from the whole of the left-wing, and was finally repealed by president Jacques Chirac (UMP) at the beginning of 2006, after accusations of historical revisionism from various teachers and historians.
It also means you have a my country right or wrong attitude.
I am not even sure what culture we would impose
Fish and chips are eating curries?
Does anyone think curries are not part of our culture these days but it would never have happened had we assimilated the folk and made them open chippies and pasty shops.
I dont see it as a dilution of our culture [ we are mixed anyway] but as enrichening it in the main.
I feel sorry for those who feel threatened as it is daft to think our culture [ or anyones] is somehow set in stone and wont change, over time, as the world changes. All life is change and these folk just cannot cope with this change and want to hold on to some sort of idyllic dream notion of Albion. Time stand still for no one.
Perhaps we should stop listening to all that Opera as well - foreign muck largely.
To be honest, one of the most concerning aspects for anyone, of any political leaning, would have to be:
[i]"They were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of UKIP."[/i]
Really? I mean, really?
That seems like a very, very strange, indeed perhaps extraordinary 'anonymous tip-off'
A suspicious or cynical person would start to wonder about how [b]exactly[/b] the council came about this information, and start asking questions about the data protection act.
Does anyone think curries are not part of our culture these days but it would never have happened had we assimilated the folk and made them open chippies and pasty shops.
Resistance is futile
Sod UKIP - I'm voting for that national party at the next election.
i ll think about the children.. this week i was asked to work in a very poor quality housing development 100% rented accomodation mix of social housing and private landlords.
monthly rent was 420 for 3 beds.
mum was looking after two kids alone two other kids were already in care.
two social workers turned up. clipbaords at the ready as they got out of a brand new large audi and told the mum what a grand job she was doing and how she should keep it up..
WTF.. the place was a dump of the highest order i would nt let a dog live in those conditions.
the kids would have been better off living anywhere else than there.
i came home and discussed fostering with the mrs. the kids deserve better
on the other hand we have a recently early retired neighbour who converted his double garage into three kids bedrooms and has three kids fostered all the time.. not ideal but clean and safe.
Actually I think that might be true. I think I heard on radio four that the council had said there was no problem with this family continuing to be a foster family.
I heard the same, it was an issue with these particular children.
As an aside, on our diversity and equality awareness training we learnt that it is not illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their political views.
My word , I never considered UKIP to be a racist party , more a Conservative protest vote if you like.
It always amuses me that the liberals / anti fascists that preach equality & tolerance always go on such a venomous offensive , when somebody doesn't hold with their particular ideas of equality & tolerance.
Two fostered kids , from a perfectly decent family ( the councils own words) now back in the care system.
Well done to the left leaning politically correct lobby - once again !
I may just vote UKIP next time around , just to spite this small minded bigotry !
While UKIP may have no overt racist policies
it cant be denied that they attract some xenophobic and or racist types
just look at the talkbacks on any telegraph post on immigration and there are some pretty horrible racist posts and also a lot of pro UKIP posts with a lot of overlap between the 2
assuming its as black and white as painted by the telegraph though then it does seem to be the wrong decision in this case
if the children were being well looked after its terrible that theyve been taken away
either way im sure farrage and co will get a lot of mileage out of it and milk it to the max
What exactly is 'British culture'? Cos I haven't got a clue what parties like UKIP and BNP supposed to be defending.
Two fostered kids , from a perfectly decent family ( the councils own words) now back in the care system.
It was three and there were still in the care system when forstered as that is part of the system. Did you bother to read the reasons as to why this couple are not suitable for these kids rather than not suitable per se?
What next Muslims should foster Christians and it is unfair they be fostered with a muslim family - is this PC gone mad or more lefty madness. It appears to me to be just common sense tbh.
Well done to the left leaning politically correct lobby - once again !
I think you show your own personal bias there. Perhaps you could explain why it is a bad decision and then prove it was done by the left leaning political correct lobby
Its a emotive issue but the reasoning seems sound.
No one is saying that UKIP members cannot foster just that they may not be the best match for all children - this s tru of any and all foster parents.
Its hardly a controversial stance to suggest you views and background should match the childrens if you provide care for them- see myself and religion
Its not a political stance from either side just bloody obvious tbh.
While UKIP may have no overt racist policiesit cant be denied that they attract some xenophobic and or racist types
Thats like saying that youth organisations attracts peadophiles, whilst it may be technically true, it doesn't allow you to extrapolate that the organisations are therefore fundamentally evil.
Its the bent cucumbers I miss
Do the others just not hit the spot?
What exactly is 'British culture'? Cos I haven't got a clue what parties like UKIP and BNP supposed to be defending
like most idiotyic notions of nationalism, it's pure invention.
but for the sake of it, i think it's based upon a mystical time and place somewhere around a victorious war for a great cause where everyone was deferential, monogenetic and monotheistic and britain was great because it held a third of the globe in it's pocket.
Perhaps you could explain why it is a bad decision and then prove it was done by the left leaning political correct lobby
Three children being cared for in a loving family have been taken out of the environment that gives them love, stability and boundaries. The reason is that the foster family were accused of supporting a racist party. UKIP is not racist therefore an error has been made. Only the left could confuse a policy of limiting immigration with being racist therefore its the left that made the mistake.
It seems a total mess-up by all concerned - take this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/24/ukip-foster-parents-children-removed-social-workers
Gove said: "Any council which decides that supporting a mainstream UK political party disbars an individual from looking after children in care is sending a dreadful signal that will only decrease the number of loving homes available to children in need."
They haven't - they've said only these particular children.
Then the leader of the council said: "There is no policy, as has been implied, that if you are a British National party member you can't foster children."
Who mentioned BNP?
And then Nigel Farrage: The MEP also accused the Labour-controlled council of bigotry towards his party.
He really needs to learn what bigotry is.
Actually I think that might be true. I think I heard on radio four that the council had said there was no problem with this family continuing to be a foster family.
I'd just assumed that was the case. I couldn't comprehend that on the basis of political leanings you would be deemed unfit to foster children at all, so I didn't for a moment, consider that was the fact of the matter. I hope that is still the case.
Three children being cared for in a loving family have been taken out of the environment that gives them love, stability and boundaries. The reason is that the foster family were accused of supporting a racist party[ [b]can I have a direct quote from someone involved that this is the reason[/b]]. UKIP is not racist therefore an error has been made. Only the left could confuse a policy of limiting immigration with being racist therefore its the left that made the mistake.
it not what happened is it ?
I gave a much more detailed reply up there and I am not repeating it
Anyway I am oot this will just be a right wing left wing STW knee jerk fest
This is not a right or left wing issue as far as i can se ejust common sense for all the reason mentioned above though some of you want to turn it into some sort of PC battleground as it serves your agenda and fears/concerns
Joyce Thacker, strategic director of children and young people's services at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, said earlier on Saturday that the three ethnic minority children had been placed with the couple as an emergency and it was never going to be a long-term arrangement.
"Also the fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in,"
So someone else may be better able to meet the cultural needs of the immigrant children rather than a UKIP suporter who agrees with British cultural hegemony and rejects multiculturalism- - why is this controversial ? Seriously why? As an atheist i would not be the best for a religious child, this is not infringing my rights to hold views , it is serving the needs of the child which is what we should all be most concerned about as the lefty judge noted in their judgement
Turning it into a STW left v right issue is pointless and it is not actually about this but about matching children with people who can best meet their needs.
This is not a right or left wing issue as far as i can se ejust common sense for all the reason mentioned above though some of you want to turn it into some sort of PC battleground as it serves your agenda and fears/concerns
I agree, it's not a right wing, left wing issue and shouldn't be drawn into that but I'm not sure common sense has been fully applied with the decision making process either. If the reporting is accurate (dubious) then it's a worrying decision that has been made by the council.
can I have a direct quote from someone involved that this is the reason
I was paraphrasing based on the Telegraph article which interviewed and quoted the couple concerned. It is what they were told by the social worker who came to inform them of what was going to happen and why.
As for common sense I am willing to wager that those making anything remotely like an argument of this sort don't have kids.
If they did they would know that the benefits to immigrant children, of a loving household will always outweigh whether the fostering parents think immigration should be controlled.
Junky - whilst they may be fair points if we were talking about a long term foster placement or an adoption, the council spokesperson has quite specifically stated that this was an 'emergency placement' and 'never intended to be long term', although she contradicts and undermines her own argument by going on to say that her reason for moving the children was her concern that the foster parents were inappropriate to fulfil the 'cultural needs of these children in the long-term.'
therefore to uproot the children from a family providing them with excellent care at short notice based upon what seems to have been a knee jerk reaction to an 'anonymous tip off' is unacceptable.
And quite apart from anything else why does being concerned about unchecked immigration make you unsuitable to care for the cultural needs of a child even if they are themselves a foreign national?
So someone else may be better able to meet the cultural needs of the immigrant children rather than a UKIP suporter who agrees with British cultural hegemony and rejects multiculturalism- - why is this controversial ?
nicely put.
whether ukip are racists or not on the basis of their belief in British cultural hegemony and the rejection of multiculturalism (i believe they are)is not really the point. the fact is that those beliefs will not be conducive to giving these children a happy life.
i'm out too.
I'm out too.
And quite apart from anything else why does being concerned about unchecked immigration make you unsuitable to care for the cultural needs of a child even if they are themselves a foreign national?
That not what was said by anyone and I explained the issue earlier as quoted above.
I am not sure that redescribing it falsely as that or as racism[ you earlier post] is actually helping the debate either.
Mrs Thacker had told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We always try to place children in a sensible cultural placement. These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the Ukip party and we have to think of the future of the children."
"Also the fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in."
Asked what the specific problem was with the couple being Ukip members, Mrs Thacker told the BBC: "We have to think about the clear statements on ending multi-culturalism for example.
"These children are from EU migrant backgrounds and Ukip has very clear statements on ending multiculturalism, not having that going forward, and I have to think about how sensitive I am being to those children."
Mrs Thacker said the three children had been placed with the couple as an emergency and the arrangement was never going to be long-term.
She added that there was no issue about the quality of care the couple provided and said she would co-operate with any investigation
I see no mention of racism nor of immigration in the explanation so I am not sure why you keep asking.
I see no mention of racism nor of immigration in the explanation
Now now Junky - the allegation in the paper was quite specifically that Racism and Immigration (indeed repatriation) [b]were[/b] mentioned to the foster parents, and the council have not denied this:
[i]Then my question to both of them was, 'What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’
“Then one of them said, 'Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.[/i]
Whilst on the surface of it this does sound like an absolutely absurd decision i wouldn't be at all surprised if their was other issues going on
From the comments of Joyce Thacker, it seems that isn't the case at all - the decision was made based upon the headline issue.
It would seem that her prejudices about how the couple might treat the children are rather misplaced:
"We were actively encouraging these children to speak their own language... we enjoyed singing one of their folk songs in their native language."Having been told of the religious denomination of these children - we took steps to ensure that a school of their denomination was found."
Though it does look like the whole issue was about covering her back rather than considering the best interests of the children:
I have legal advice I have to follow for the placement of children and I was criticised before for not making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met.
So someone else may be better able to meet the cultural needs of the immigrant children rather than a UKIP suporter who agrees with British cultural hegemony and rejects multiculturalism- - why is this controversial ?
Someone else may be able to better meet the needs of the children than who they have now been placed with instead. Maybe they should be moved on again if they find any evidence of the new foster parents not being perfect. Not that I understand there is any evidence at all that the original foster parents weren't meeting the cultural needs of the children, just prejudice and bias.
i'm out too.
On day release?
You pseudo-liberals won't like this, but multiculturalism is an oxymoron in society.
There's nothing racist about that.
There's nothing racist about keeping check on immigration, although I'd appreciate it if you'd let my family of mixed immigrants remain.
There is nothing racist about not wanting to be in the EU, which we really don't benefit from.
The EU was destined to fail; too many countries of differing economies.
It's like the world's biggest experiment on multiculturalism.
I'm sure UKIP has racist supporters, as you will find racist people who support any party, but as a party I have no reason to believe they are racist.
"Also the fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in."
I'm curious as to what "cultural and ethnic needs" a foster child might require other than being brought up in a friendly, caring, and disciplined environment.
making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met.
Unintentionally, the best words to describe how mutliculturalism is defined in today's society! Says so much.
Edit: Better not have foster parents who support Lab or Cons either given their current and ex-leaders' comments on multiculturalism!
I'm in and out for sure.
So someone else may be better able to meet the cultural needs of the immigrant children rather than a UKIP suporter who agrees with British cultural hegemony and rejects multiculturalism- - why is this controversial ? Seriously why?
So we're all agreed then; we'll ship the blighters back off to the continent so their cultural needs will be best met. 😀
Or we could, and I'm going to shout for the hard of thinking, LEAVE THEM IN THE CARE OF A LOVING FAMILY.
(Not directed personally at you Junkers, just quoted your post for the humour angle)
My understanding of the ukip position on immigration is that it is based on their economic policies rather than a racist position.
Multiculturalism has a bad name because it leads to adjacent communities leading separate lives and having rather nasty opinions about the other community. Rochdale is a classic example of this.
What is becoming clear is that the family were doing what most people would, their best for the kids.
Wanting things to be done differently doesn't stop you making the best of how they are actually run. The council officers who placed the kids there in the first place failed to ascertain the facts of the case and took a decision based on little or no evidence.
Personally I think ukip are a fringe party I wouldn't vote for, but I would say that members are unfit to foster any child.
I haven't been in, but i'm ooot
*walks in, spins around and back out.
So from what the boss was saying on the radio, it's not about UKIP at all, it's the kids' cultural and ethnic needs, and the social workers were telling porkies?
Are they now facing an interview without coffee and biscuits?
it cant be denied that they attract some xenophobic and or racist types
You can say that about any party though. I've worked in some fairly run down North East areas that are Labour strongholds. You really wouldn't want to be non-white with the attitudes I've seen there (and the attacks), and I'm pretty sure most weren't UKIP members...
I'm back in, but just to
😆
at this:
You pseudo-liberals
As an atheist i would not be the best for a [b]religious child[/b], this is not infringing my rights to hold views , it is serving the needs of the child which is what we should all be most concerned about as the lefty judge noted in their judgement
What on [i]earth[/i] do you mean by a [i]religious[/i] child? Religion is not an inherited characteristic, or a genetic trait, but a learned trait. You imply that it would be better to remove children from a white, atheist foster home and place them with a family of a similar ethnic background, but who hold religious or cultural beliefs that include female circumcision?
And that those children should be then brought up to believe that those beliefs are acceptable in the UK, because their country of origin continues to practice an abhorrent form of child abuse?
Not that these children have that background, they are European, but the principle is the same.
Children should be free to choose whatever faith they wish, when they're intellectually capable of making such a decision, and if these children are European Caucasian in origin, then there is no real, significant difference in cultural background, and in any case, anybody moving to another culture should adapt to that culture, to suggest otherwise is to be an advocate of ghettoisation.
If you move to France, Hungary, Norway or wherever, you learn to communicate in the local language, and follow, to an extent, local culture. A friend of mine, who married a German girl, moved there, and posts in English and German on Facebook, he's fitted into the German way of life, but still keeps his 'Englishness' when communicating with friends back home. That's as it should be, and what UKIP advocate.
There's a lot of backtracking going on at the council but however they try to dress it up, saying it was about the children's cultural and ethnic needs and not about UKIP membership is a false claim. Of course it's about the foster parents' UKIP membership. If it was simply about cultural and ethnic needs they wouldn't have placed the children with that family in the first place. Something has changed/new information has come to light that now makes social services think the foster careers are no longer in a position to meet these long term needs. That information is their UKIP support.
Again, what is it about UKIP support that makes yo unsuitable to meet any child's needs not least those that are foreign nationals?
The simple issue that should be debated here is that someone ****ed up in their understanding of what UKIP stands for. It is either ignorance, bigotry or prejudice.
That's the ball game, nothing else.
Bottom line.
Someone in a suit has screwed up, but been in a suit they'll do anything but admit they screwed up.
End of.
Now now Junky
No need, really no need for this. As ad-hominem as you accuse others.
What is disappointing is that the man in charge in Westminster has based his reaction on a media report before he had all the information. Very,very poor leadership and management.
Bottom line.Someone in a suit has screwed up, but been in a suit they'll do anything but admit they screwed up.
End of.
From the information in the public domain, way too early to tell