Dreadful decision by Rotherham Borough Council

[RalphC]

Rotherham Borough Council have decided to remove foster children from two UKIP members.

 

---------------

 

A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.

 

Rotherham Borough Council said the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration.

 

It said it had to consider the "needs of the children longer term".

 

The unnamed couple told the Daily Telegraph social workers had accused them of belonging to a "racist party". UKIP said it was an appalling decision.

 

Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC that her decision was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy, which she said calls for the end of the "active promotion of multiculturalism".

 

UKIP's immigration policy states the party wants an "end [to] the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", and urges Britain to leave the European Union (EU).

 

The Labour Party has called for an investigation into the Labour-run council's decision, after claims from UKIP it could have been politically motivated.

 

The couple, who have been approved foster parents for seven years, were eight weeks into the placement when they were approached by social workers about their membership of the party.

 

The wife told the Daily Telegraph: "I was dumbfounded. 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."

 

The paper says the woman denied she was racist but the children were taken away by the end of the week.

 

She said the social worker told her: "We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of UKIP because it wouldn't have been the right cultural match."

 

The couple said they had been "stigmatised and slandered".

 

Ms Thacker said she did not regret the decision, which was reached after "a lot of soul searching".

 

"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."

 

She added during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today: "I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs.

 

"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.

 

"If the party mantra is, for example, ending the active promotion of multiculturalism I have to think about that... I have to think of their longer-term needs.

 

"I don't think [uKIP] are a racist party... I think they have very clear immigration and policies and I have to take all those factors into account."

 

She added that the children were placed with the family temporarily and were never intended to stay with the family long-term.

 

The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future.

 

UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned the decision and said the council had many questions to answer.

 

He told the BBC he felt: "Very upset and very angry... this couple involved who have been fostering for many years and are very decent people. This was an awful shock to them, not to mention the upset for the children themselves.

 

"Politically, I am not surprised at all. This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils.

 

"We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."

 

He added in a statement: "They [the council] have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias?

 

"Publicly they must make absolutely clear the decision-making process in this case, who was responsible for this decision and why."

 

In a statement, Labour said: "Membership of UKIP should not block parents from adopting children. There needs to be an urgent investigation by Rotherham Borough Council into this decision."

 

UKIP describes itself as a "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union".

 

It currently has 12 MEPs and 31 councillors, with three peers in the House of Lords

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

I was going to post this, but you beat me to it Ralph.

 

As you've said, a dreadful decision - and one which makes Rotherham Council look completely stupid and inept.

 

Even if the parents had been BNP voters, I would have said the same thing. It just adds fuel to the fire for UKIP, and shows that the powers-that-be are little more than very well paid retards. I hope that the leader of the council there is sacked, forthwith, for sheer and utter incompetency.

 

It's not the first time they've been shown up as well - I remember Dolly Parton taking the leader of the council to task over the poor standard of education in the borough, after she visited the area a few years ago.

[Loose]

I was going to post this, but you beat me to it Ralph.

 

As you've said, a dreadful decision - and one which makes Rotherham Council look completely stupid and inept.

 

Even if the parents had been BNP voters, I would have said the same thing. It just adds fuel to the fire for UKIP, and shows that the powers-that-be are little more than very well paid retards. I hope that the leader of the council there is sacked, forthwith, for sheer and utter incompetency.

 

It's not the first time they've been shown up as well - I remember Dolly Parton taking the leader of the council to task over the poor standard of education in the borough, after she visited the area a few years ago.

 

Sacked for doing her job? You'll find that they have very tight guidelines and as the article says this will have been done for cultural reasons not because the couple were thought to be racist.

 

Yet another storm in a tea cup that has been hi-jacked and will be turned into another witch-hunt. Pathetic to attempt to make it political. What's new?

[Ian_W]

She article on the BBC says.....

 

 

 

 

"The council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, earlier defended the decision, saying it was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy.

 

She said: "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.

 

"If the party mantra is, for example, ending the active promotion of multiculturalism I have to think about that... I have to think of their longer-term needs.

 

Ms Thacker added she did not think UKIP were a racist party, but said they have "very clear" immigration policies which she could not ignore."

 

 

 

She has decided that being a member of UKIP is grounds for the children to be removed, which is just wrong. It can never be right.

 

She should be fired as clearly is not up to the job, if she is going to discriminate against people just because of their political views.

 

We are talking about a couple who are in their 50's, and have been fostering for 7 years - they are, I am sure, ideal foster parents.

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

Well said, Ian!

 

UKIP are FAR from a racist party, and her actions are inexcusable. I would not be surprised if she was trained by Common Purpose.

 

If we're going to have a witch-hunt, Alan, lets have one against those corrupt officials and politicians of ALL parties who abuse their power.

 

Even the Labour Party have said that Rotherham Council have made a stupid decision.

[Loose]

Well I'm sorry to say that you have no idea what restrictions these placement managers work under and with. One of the clearest regulations outlines that the placement of children should not leave them feeling culturally confused or prejudiced against. Imagine your own young children placed with people whose ideals are to reduce the number of their nationality in the country they are in. Would they understand the issues? Would they appreciate that it is an ideal and not an ideology?

 

In any case, the woman has jumped through hoops that our current society and past media cases have made a dog's dinner of. She will know that there are not enough foster placements available overall and that children in care do better and are more liable to have a successful outcomes with foster placements than care home placements and will not be enjoying the decision she has been forced to take.

 

So the option available is to sack her.

 

No, it really isn't.

 

 

Edit. BTW, these policies aren't local ones made up by a local authority, they are national regulations under The Children Act 2004. So regardless of which party rules the local council politicising it, her and the decision is irrelevant.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Loose

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

Are you sure that it's not politically motivated though, Loose?

 

I've known of a couple who've lost their children to Nottinghamshire Social Services because their dad is anti-Europe and has been a member of UKIP for ten years - even standing as an MP in the county on several occasions. On the same street as this family is another couple who engage in swinging, dogging and orgies involving drugs. This couple has a young child who is taunted and abused at school(he's only seven years old) and because his Mum is 'friendly' with staff at Nottinghamshire Council he gets to stay with them.

 

You mention culturally confused and prejudiced - well what about us indigenous lot who have to bend over backwards for immigrants? What about being told that the city that you live in 'is not yours anymore' and the shops and stores where you live have to put up signage in Polish and other languages? If I went to Poland and demanded everything in Welsh I'd soon be told to eff off. Sorry, but if you come here to live you need to bend as well - even the Indians and Pakistanis in Gloucester are now starting to realise that living in a ghetto is not going to help them become part of the fabric of the city, and they're getting more involved with White people, Black people, Asian people and others in projects in the city which helps kick racism into touch and promotes better friendships and understanding. The Poles won't mix, yet they always complain that nobody likes them here....

 

The council leader did not apply common sense (probably beyond her remit anyway); being against multiculturalism is not a crime and is not racist. If, for example, the new manager of Romford or AFC Hornchurch was Scottish and only wanted Scottish players in the team and didn't care about the current players or youth players, then I'm sure fans of those clubs would say 'hang on, he's prejudiced against our lads.' Don't you think that sometimes the indigenous people of the United Kingdom feel like that? Maybe it's time that we say 'enough is enough' and protect our own first. There's nothing wrong with that - it's not the same as saying 'I don't want any blacks on my street' whereby that statement is obviously racist.

 

I've seen this sort of thing before with councils - had they been 'bad parents' and Labour/Tory/Lib Dem voters then it would not have been mentioned in the media. It's purely because they support a party which threatens the traditional political status quo.

 

I don't have much time for Michael Gove and Ed Miliband, but they've both gone up in my respect today after their statements in the media today about this story.

Edited November 24, 2012 by The Mayor Of Simpleton

[Loose]

Well I'm pretty sure that it's a decision made by appointed employees with the relevant qualifications and not by a politician or committee, certainly not in the council chambers. You see, when you get your bog standard care scandal it's usually because someone didn't do something or a long line of somethings and the council usually comes in for a politicised kicking because it was not overseeing the measures put in place or personnel in job.

 

This is a clear case of an appointed employee and her team far removed from councillors and politics making a decision and doing something where the guidelines have been laid down by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission founded on an Act of Parliament on a free vote namely the Children Act 1989 (revised 2004), so it's as far removed from local, regional and national politics as you can get and purely professional in the interests of the child(ren) and cover butt.

 

I'm pretty sure because it's how it happens every single time.

 

 

I don't really see where "us indigenous lot" comes into it so won't/can't really see the relevance. It's all about the child.

[missunderstood]

What on earth

Are you sure that it's not politically motivated though, Loose?

 

I've known of a couple who've lost their children to Nottinghamshire Social Services because their dad is anti-Europe and has been a member of UKIP for ten years - even standing as an MP in the county on several occasions. On the same street as this family is another couple who engage in swinging, dogging and orgies involving drugs. This couple has a young child who is taunted and abused at school(he's only seven years old) and because his Mum is 'friendly' with staff at Nottinghamshire Council he gets to stay with them.

 

You mention culturally confused and prejudiced - well what about us indigenous lot who have to bend over backwards for immigrants? What about being told that the city that you live in 'is not yours anymore' and the shops and stores where you live have to put up signage in Polish and other languages? If I went to Poland and demanded everything in Welsh I'd soon be told to eff off. Sorry, but if you come here to live you need to bend as well - even the Indians and Pakistanis in Gloucester are now starting to realise that living in a ghetto is not going to help them become part of the fabric of the city, and they're getting more involved with White people, Black people, Asian people and others in projects in the city which helps kick racism into touch and promotes better friendships and understanding. The Poles won't mix, yet they always complain that nobody likes them here....

 

The council leader did not apply common sense (probably beyond her remit anyway); being against multiculturalism is not a crime and is not racist. If, for example, the new manager of Romford or AFC Hornchurch was Scottish and only wanted Scottish players in the team and didn't care about the current players or youth players, then I'm sure fans of those clubs would say 'hang on, he's prejudiced against our lads.' Don't you think that sometimes the indigenous people of the United Kingdom feel like that? Maybe it's time that we say 'enough is enough' and protect our own first. There's nothing wrong with that - it's not the same as saying 'I don't want any blacks on my street' whereby that statement is obviously racist.

 

I've seen this sort of thing before with councils - had they been 'bad parents' and Labour/Tory/Lib Dem voters then it would not have been mentioned in the media. It's purely because they support a party which threatens the traditional political status quo.

 

I don't have much time for Michael Gove and Ed Miliband, but they've both gone up in my respect today after their statements in the media today about this story.

 

What makes you think you have a right to comment on who looks after someone elses children?. Do you know anything about the parents, or the reason why the children need fostering, if the children are expected to return to their parents, or even if the parents have stipulated what type of people they would prefer to foster their children.

 

From my own perspective, if my children was much younger and needed to to go into care, I would hate their foster parents to be little Englanders, devout christians, or racist BNP members because of the possibility of indoctrinization.

 

Without knowing the full facts surrounding this case its impossible to make a reasoned judgement, even for someone as pious as you.

 

BTW, if you could paste some details about the UKIP member who lost his children because he was anti Europe it might make interesting reading.

Edited November 24, 2012 by missunderstood

[Loose]

Alan, why is it that people in this case want to blame the council when it has absolutely nothing to do with the council?

 

The decision isn't made by one or a group of council members. It's a decision that would be made by any and every Local Authority in the land regardless of which party holds the majority because council members do not have the ability, capacity or first clue about these cases and the relevant statutory regulations. They employ professionals for that.

 

People want to blame the council because conveniently for their view it is Labour held. That and the Daily Mail told them it is PC gone mad, the majik buzzwords that get them dusting off their pitchforks and step ladders.

[missunderstood]

Alan, why is it that people in this case want to blame the council when it has absolutely nothing to do with the council?

 

The decision isn't made by one or a group of council members. It's a decision that would be made by any and every Local Authority in the land regardless of which party holds the majority because council members do not have the ability, capacity or first clue about these cases and the relevant statutory regulations. They employ professionals for that.

 

People want to blame the council because conveniently for their view it is Labour held. That and the Daily Mail told them it is PC gone mad, the majik buzzwords that get them dusting off their pitchforks and step ladders.

 

Absolutely correct. Unless a council member (councillor) has or currently works in this specialised field for another local authority its unlikely that they would have enough knowledge to make a qualified judgement regardless of their political affilliation.

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

Alan, I will certainly try and get hold of the story about the Nottinghamshire UKIP member who lost his family.

 

In the meantime, here are a few stories from Derby on the barring of UKIP member David Gale from a speech at The University of Derby:

 

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/talks-immigration-just-racist/story-17362076-detail/story.html

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Banning-candidate-goes-free-speech/story-17331208-detail/story.html

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/want-right-wrongs-m-allowed-say/story-17331210-detail/story.html

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/UKIP-crime-job-hopeful-David-Gale-blasts/story-17308908-detail/story.html

 

Clear victimisation of a person just because of his political beliefs. Had David been called Mohammed, they wouldn't have dared ban him for fear of branded racist.

 

Perhaps if the Labour and Conservative parties were more open, honest and actually gave a sh*t about the UK and its people, they would be vilified far less by us tin-foil hat wearing, pitch fork bearing souls. As it is, both parties are incompetent and could not care less about you or I. Therefore, they bring it on themselves.

[missunderstood]

Alan, I will certainly try and get hold of the story about the Nottinghamshire UKIP member who lost his family.

 

In the meantime, here are a few stories from Derby on the barring of UKIP member David Gale from a speech at The University of Derby:

 

http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html

http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html

http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html

http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html

 

Clear victimisation of a person just because of his political beliefs. Had David been called Mohammed, they wouldn't have dared ban him for fear of branded racist.

 

Perhaps if the Labour and Conservative parties were more open, honest and actually gave a sh*t about the UK and its people, they would be vilified far less by us tin-foil hat wearing, pitch fork bearing souls. As it is, both parties are incompetent and could not care less about you or I. Therefore, they bring it on themselves.

 

All very interesting, but maybe the Derby students just decided they really didnt want to listen to the UKIP candidate, which is their right in a free democracy.

 

Returning to the thread, why do you think it was wrong to take the children away from their foster parents when you dont know all of the facts relating to the case?

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

Alan, that's slanting it a bit.

 

Yes, students have a right not to listen, but what about those that do wish to listen to what he has to say?

 

The facts, as far as I can gather, were that the couple were middle-aged and not known as trouble-makers or problematic. IF they have done wrong then apologies from me for jumping the gun, but having seen a lot of dirty trick campaigns against UKIP I am 99.9% certain that this is another one.

 

I've been called a racist, homophobe and nazi for supporting UKIP by lefties in Gloucester. When I've asked them why they called me those names their reply is always 'oh, well that's what Labour says.' They don't even take time to find out for themselves to find out just what UKIP stands for.

[missunderstood]

Alan, that's slanting it a bit.

 

Yes, students have a right not to listen, but what about those that do wish to listen to what he has to say?

 

The facts, as far as I can gather, were that the couple were middle-aged and not known as trouble-makers or problematic. IF they have done wrong then apologies from me for jumping the gun, but having seen a lot of dirty trick campaigns against UKIP I am 99.9% certain that this is another one.

 

I've been called a racist, homophobe and nazi for supporting UKIP by lefties in Gloucester. When I've asked them why they called me those names their reply is always 'oh, well that's what Labour says.' They don't even take time to find out for themselves to find out just what UKIP stands for.

 

UKIP probably stands for whatever the person standing in front of them wants to hear, which to be fair is exactly the same as most political parties.

[BUFC]

 

From my own perspective, if my children was much younger and needed to to go into care, I would hate their foster parents to be little Englanders, devout christians, or racist BNP members because of the possibility of indoctrinization.

 

.

 

But if they were 'gay', Muslims or any other ethnic minority you would have no problem eh?

Typical 2 faced leftie that has ripped the heart out of this country............

[missunderstood]

But if they were 'gay', Muslims or any other ethnic minority you would have no problem eh?

Typical 2 faced leftie that has ripped the heart out of this country............

 

Nope, wouldnt have wanted to have my kids fostered by gays, muslims or any other religious person, ethnic minorities or even lefties, just normal families who come from a similar cultural background that they are familiar with, and people that wouldnt try and indocterate them into an alien way of conducting themselves. More or less what Rotherham council are doing actually by attempting to minimise the stress factor of the children involved.

Edited November 25, 2012 by missunderstood

[BUFC]

Nope, wouldnt have wanted to have my kids fostered by gays, muslims or any other religious person, ethnic minorities or even lefties, just normal families who come from a similar cultural background that they are familiar with, and people that wouldnt try and indocterate them into an alien way of conducting themselves. More or less what Rotherham council are doing actually by attempting to minimise the stress factor of the children involved.

 

So what you are saying is feck the kids off to their homeland because we cant cater for them in Britain ? please !!!

[RalphC]

There are one or two here with some very strange views.

 

It should make no difference whether the foster parents are black, white, yellow or green with three ears.

[Loose]

There are one or two here with some very strange views.

 

It should make no difference whether the foster parents are black, white, yellow or green with three ears.

 

Ralph, I get what you are saying. I really do. In a nice fluffy world where everything is possible, where everyone is colour, creed, and prejudice blind and where children don't need to have an understanding of self and who, where and what they relate to and with, anyone could get along with anyone.

 

To give you an example of why these things can matter, there was a case a few years ago where an african-caribbean child was placed with white foster parents. Not always a problem, laudable really and yes, how we want to see equality but in this particular case the child so wanted a permanent home with this very loving couple who happened to live and socialise with mainly other white people that he felt that he needed to be white himself. So he poured a bottle of bleach in the bath, topped it up with warm water, got in and commenced scrubbing his skin. Scarred for life.

 

An extreme case for sure but one of many that has led to some care in ensuring that when children are placed in care these potential issues are planned for, negated or avoided. Cases like this and many others have developed the policies and thinking behind placements and not from political or individual bigotry. Maybe the planning in this past case could or should have still gone ahead as many still do if the child had seen, been aware of or had other african-caribbean people or children in their life during the placement or as additional role models.

 

At the end of the day it really isn't about whether the foster parents are red, yellow, black, white, six eyed or national socialists but about the child. That's who placement officers and managers feel is important. They really don't make it up as they go along. At the moment all we really know about this case is not about any of the planning meetings or complete details but how the media slant the story and how we decide to interpret the "facts" as we know them. Suggesting that anyone even vaguely suggesting that there could be more to the story is prejudiced against three eared yellow or green people is a bit simple minded.