[Closed] UKIP - I imagine this one will run and run

5...4...3...2...1...

I completely agree. Revolting prejudice.
I have a lot of time for UKIP for their clear political stance - even though I disagree with their policy of leaving the EU. I also disagree with their policies on immigration*, but whatever they are they arent racist policies. Their clear political stance does not encompass a racist bigotry and the attempt to paint UKIP as a BNP-lite is grossly insulting to those who simply agree with their EU policies.

* [url= http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21564841-britain%E2%80%99s-immigration-policy-crippling-business-and-economy-wake-up-mr-cameron ]Im with The Economist on that one[/url]

I'm sure Junk and the rest of STWs resident comrades will be on in a minute, praising the councils well though out aims for European (eussr) integration and protection from the tyranny of self determination by a party of a rouge eu state.

🙄

Can't see what the bloody hell is going on here. Political correctness gone mad by the looks of it. It's the end of free speech. Probably some ruling from a Eurocrat in Brussels.

It is a very odd story - the council say they were taking legal advice, but I wonder how the issue even arose? Of course UKIP members [url= http://twitpic.com/9n55py/full ]can be racists[/url] but that makes them no different to members of any other party - they're not the BNP or EDL.

LOL! I voted for UKIP (think might be 2nd choice with Tory 1st) for Police commissioner.

Reason is simple. There should be Dear Leader.

Well thinking of it I am in a region with strong Labour support (Lib dem council) so I just hate being told what to think. Very PC they are. Maggots!

i only know one person who supports ukip - she's a racist.

if ukip aren't racists is it just coincidence that their policies on europe, multiculturalism and immigration appeal to the racist, xenophobic, insular elements of society ? they'll more than gladly accept the bigots at the ballot.

for all of those crying foul here, what would your position be if the letters bnp or edl were swapped for ukip ?

*loving your work dd* 😆

Surely there is more to this than reported in the press?

There would be a certain irony though if the couple raised a case under Human Rights Legislation to fight it when UKIP want rid of Human Rights Law!

Wanting control if immigration is NOT racist. It's just not.

i suppose opposing multiculturalism isn't either ?

for all of those crying foul here, what would your position be if the letters bnp or edl were swapped for ukip ?

well that's the point isnt it tm - or did you miss it?
They are no more interchangeable than New Labour, The Socialist Worker's Party, The Workers Revolutionary Party or The Communist Party. Do you think a Labour Voters politics should be conflated with the Communist party, coz, you know, they're all the same really arent they...?

Now, I can't condemn the council for what it has done here, because I think that members of the Labour party should be barred from holding any taxpayer funded job on the basis that they are small minded, interfering, financial incompetents.

I really don't see how this sort of thing can be controversial.

I think that members of [s]the Labour[/s] any party should be barred from holding any taxpayer funded job on the basis that they are small minded, interfering, financial incompetents.

FTFY 😉

We need an EU referendum NOW !

i suppose opposing multiculturalism isn't either ?

From Wiki:

[i]UKIP opposes multiculturalism and political correctness but rejects "blood and soil" ethnic nationalism. UKIP promotes uni-culturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours". It states that Britishness can be defined in terms of belief in democracy, fair play and freedom.[/i]

Which seems like the very antithesis of racism to me, doesn't it to you?

Unlike, perhaps

[img] [/img]

Lets also not forget that discriminating against someone on the grounds of their political beliefs is a breach of their Human rights, even if they are in the BNP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/nov/06/bnp-bus-driver-wins-legal-case

It's very simple; anyone belonging to UKIP is an imbecile and imbeciles should not be encouraged to raise children. I really can't see what all the fuss is about...

i suppose opposing multiculturalism isn't either ?

Correct. See for example [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/may/28/equality.raceintheuk ]Trevor Phillips' views[/url] as chairman of the commission for racial equality:

When I remarked last month that it was time for Britain to move on from divisive, 80s-style "multiculturalist" policies, I thought it might cause a mild stir among Britain's diversity professionals and activists

Zulu, why don't you get us a picture from the bible. 😆

Didn't UKIP have some negative views on cycling in their manifesto? Like compulsory use of cycle lanes etc

We need an EU referendum NOW !

I think the last thing we want to do is ask the general unwashed what they think they want! They're bound to come out with the wrong answer! 😉

Darcy, why don't you get us a picture from your family tree?

Now - how about you try and debate rather than relying on ad hominem attacks every time you're pwned,? you're starting to turn into TJ 😉

A bit like the Bus Driver that won his case:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bradford-bus-driver-should-not-have-been-sacked-for-his-membership-of-the-british-national-party-8289958.html

Under the original theory, surely anyone who works in the public sector and becomes a Tory councillor should automatically lose their job 😉

They are no more interchangeable than New Labour, The Socialist Worker's Party, The Workers Revolutionary Party or The Communist Party. Do you think a Labour Voters politics should be conflated with the Communist party, coz, you know, they're all the same really arent they

not at all, the very core of new labour is neo liberalism, the others oppose it, absolutely.

how much of the bnp's core policies on immigration, multiculturalism and europe are opposed by ukip ?

i'd say they were pretty close.

i'd say they were pretty close.

UKIP promotes uni-culturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours".

Just like the BNP and EDL eh?

I would say that on the subject of racist beliefs you couldnt really get a greater opposing view.

UKIP promotes uni-culturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours

so we don't mind you being a bit dark just as long as you think, pray, dress, listen, read, teach, see they same as 'we' do. an idea of 'britishness' that comes from god knows where.

Which seems like the very antithesis of racism to me, doesn't it to you?

no, it seems like the very definition of it. they dislike difference.

Ah Zulu...come on now. It's not like you to be so sensitive. How about a bit of Solomon's wisdom.

no, it seems like the very definition of it. they dislike difference.

want a hand finding an online dictionary?

UKIP promotes uni-culturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours".

I would say that on the subject of racist beliefs you couldnt really get a greater opposing view.

why ? the bnp allows black members.

want a hand finding an online dictionary?

you do realise you lose tyhe argument the moment you start being insulting right ?

so it's not racist to suggest that all races are welcome as long as they conform to a national cultural stereotype ?

BNP and UKIP are not close at all, not even remotely. BNP advocates repatriation of immigrants and its definition of the 'British people' is clearly racist. UKIP is in favour of immigration, just not unregulated immigration and it believes there should be a ban on it for the next five years. I don't believe being against multiculturalism is racist either, especially when you read their definition of that as posted above.

Someone at Rotherham council has made a serious error of judgement here. It might hAve been well intentioned but it is entirely ignorant and ill informed.

700 wives and 300 concubines? Well, we'll have some of that type of multiculturalism Darcy 🙂

Given Rotherham's sterling reputation in Child Protection work, is anyone surprised by more evidence of incompetence?

Isnt it Doncaster that has an outstanding reputation in child services?
Or is Rotherham just as outstanding?

*goes off to check private eye*

Anyway, back OT, they'll be making us have straight bananas next. 😐

Point of order.

The BNP is a 'racist' party. Think we can all agree on that.
The BNP has racist policies.
It also has other policies that aren't themselves racists (such as the idea of 'Britishness' as a single cultural entity being a good thing, short of definitions that in way that excludes other ethnic groups from being part of it) and just because the BNP adopts them doesn't make those policies racists by default.

Its the bent cucumbers I miss 🙁

so it's not racist to suggest that all races are welcome as long as they conform to a national cultural stereotype ?

Why don't you explain to us how that does in fact constitute [b]racism[/b] Trailmonkey ? Maybe in one syllable words so we can understand it, eh.

I never had UKIP down as a racist party. Silly party, yes.
On first reading this story I thought there's bound to be more to this story and that the couple wouldn't have to stop fostering because they support UKIP but seeing as my OH is a foster carer and knowing what rubbish she has to put up with from social workers then it doesn't really surprise me.

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, i believe they were after all acting on an tip off, although it hasn't been reported if their were other concerns of the whistle-blower just this one headline, and i for one came to the conclusion a long time ago that the media can't be trusted to report everything 100% accurately 100% of the time.

Look at it from this perspective, if you were in the job that meant making the decision would you prefer to see this as a headline or in 6 months time a headline that read "COUNCIL LET UKIP RACISTS HAVE ETHNIC CHILDREN AS SLAVES" or some other child abuse story.

Child services have come under plenty of scrutiny in recent years, and rightly so, after the high profile deaths of children who have been on their radar, and the children's welfare must always be paramount even if it does upset a few people.

Read some of the comments after this story if you can be bothered to wade through them

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/teenage-girls-attacker-caught-cctv-205025481.html

Now i'm not suggesting for one minute that all UKIP supporters are racist, but there is some thinly veiled racism going on in those comments and i wouldn't be at all surprised if alot of them align themselves with UKIP, because UKIP isn't racist and no one likes to be called a racist even if they blatantly are.

so it's not racist to suggest that all races are welcome as long as they conform to a national cultural stereotype ?

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.

It should also be noted that race and ethnicity are not the same thing either; racism judges people by genetics and deems them inferior on that basis alone. Ethnicism is something else; judging people based on their ideas and values. I am deeply uncomfortable with racism because it's entirely ignorant in its judgement, but ethnicism is different. For example is it so bad to hold prejudicial views against ethnically prescribed homophobia, or religious haterd?

Bazz: Now i'm not suggesting for one minute that all UKIP supporters are racist, but there is some thinly veiled racism going on in those comments and i wouldn't be at all surprised if alot of them align themselves with UKIP, because UKIP isn't racist and no one likes to be called a racist even if they blatantly are.

Errmmm ... from other minority point of views everyone is a racist deep down to some extend. Some keep to themselves, some just express their views more strongly while others act on it.

I have voted for Lib dem, Labour, NuLabour, Tory, UKIP but as far as I know I am voting for lesser maggots that's all.

Anyone that has already concluded what has happened is a buffoon

Bazz has it. Speaking with my professional hat on, I would be very suprised indeed if there is more to it than the political leanings of the foster parents.

The Telegraph reports a great deal from the foster parents and only this statement from the local authority:

A spokesman for Rotherham metropolitan borough council said last night: “After a group of sibling children were placed with agency foster carers, issues were raised regarding the long-term suitability of the carers for these particular children.

"With careful consideration, a decision was taken to move the children to alternative care. We continue to keep the situation under review.”

Of course they are not prepared to comment to the public at this early stage (or indeed ever?) on why they removed the children. In my career I have encountered all sorts of reasons for removing children from foster carers, and an almost equally diverse range of 'understandings' amongst parents and foster carers of why children were removed from them. Sometimes those understandings are shared/agreed on by social services and the parent/foster carer, and sometimes they are wildly different. Perhaps there is something else/different that the local authority are too professional to tell a newspaper reporter about at this point.

It is also worth noting (as the Telegraph article does) that there is a by-election in Rotheram with a UKIP candiate standing, of course.

Of course they are not prepared to comment to the public at this early stage (or indeed ever?) on why they removed the children.

Their top person was touring the studios this morning doing precisely the opposite.

Mrs (Joyce) Thacker (Head of Children's Services) 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."

Council is swinging into U-turn mode now after it became clear they had zero support from anyone outside the Town Hall.

elzorillo - Member
I'm sure Junk and the rest of STWs resident comrades will be on in a minute, praising the councils well though out aims for European (eussr) integration and protection from the tyranny of self determination by a party of a rouge eu state.

Thanks for all that but tbh , beyond your bile and disdain, i dont actually know what rational point you are trying to make 🙄

The thing with political views is you need to defend the right to express views you find the most odious or dislike the most. For me UKIP are not even close the worst I could call them is slightly xenophobic patriots an even that may be OTT. they are some way short of even BNP light IMHO

I think we all need to respect folks views a bit more - its not like everyone right wing s a nazi or everyone left wing a stalinist[ thought there are some].

the bnp allows black members.

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

To avoid disappearances, asylum seekers will be held in secure and humane centres until applications are processed, with limited right to appeal. Those seeking asylum must do so in the first ‘designated safe country’ they enter. Existing asylum seekers who have had their application refused will be required to leave the country, along with any dependants. We oppose any amnesties for failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.

THE ONLY PARTY STANDING UP FOR BRITAIN AND (ALL) THE BRITISH PEOPLE

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,"

I am not sure anyone is saying they cannot foster just that they may not be the best foster parents for these children.
It s a complex issue and I can see arguments both ways and I doubt a STW knee jerk goad fest will help us clear up this issue as we take opposing stances and attack one another.

UKIP are clearly not racist like the BNP are but I think an "ethnic person" would probably be better served being placed with someone with different views as UKIP want them to adopt our culture rather than respect theirs [ to some degree anyway - a pro British way rather than hatred of foreigners but in a keep Britain British- or assimilation??]

In much the same way I would not be the best choice for some children who came from a deeply religious background given my views on religion.

Its about matching people with good matches- similar values after all.

Wont someone think about the children 😉

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.

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 policies

it 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.