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

Junkyard - Member
...but it has been explained to you over and over again what the REAL reason was and racism was not ever apart of it.

So its a bloody good job that none of us believe what we read in the papers, since they (of all political persuasion) reported that, "the parents were told by social workers that they belonged to a "racist" party and [i]so they were unsuitable carers for the children[/i]."

So dedicated to attacking lefties that you dont even care if you get the facts rights or whether you can even prove they are lefties.

😉 😉 A job in journalism beckons then?

As a sign of the UK's multiculturalism, we have just appointed a Canadian-Brit to the position of Governor of the Bank of England. Imagine how many countries would do that? [But just for balance he is Harvard/Oxford (Economics) and Goldman Sachs, so still from a narrow sub-section!!!]

how would that ideology drive this decision in any way shape or form ?

It doesn't, but folk love someone to blame. Grrrr it's all there fault ad nauseum.

I know what the parents claim was said to them and that the papers reported this but everyone involved gives another explanation.
Its not like they might wish to gets some mileage from the claim or that UKIP are exploiting it for political reasons now is it.

I dont think you believe the social workers called them racist either or that you think his accounts are unbiased.
Will be easy to [dis]prove since there will be case notes attached to the children and minutes from the panel meeting that made the decision.

PS I dont think you think a social worker actually said this to them. They may be left wing loons but they are not that stupid

Yes interesting choice never heard of him but interesting interview on Radio 4 on the way home with him.

will the current number 2 flounce and will it matter?

In that case Junky, why no denial from the council that the R word was used?

You've been very quick to both call the couple involved stupid and accuse them of lying.

(without any evidence of either, hows about that for a fact based approach to debate)

They may be left wing loons but they are not that stupid

A few minutes ago you were denying they were lefties at all...

Ok junkyard, lets for a moment agree that whatever exchange was had between the social workers and the foster family is irrelevant. What [i]are[/i] the reasons they were unsuitable for caring for these children; why does being a member of UKIP make them unsuitable to care for their cultural needs?

can we just get one thing straight. being left wing is determined by your opinions on who owns the means of production, the distribution of wealth and the burden of tax.

Labour abandoned the first of those principles years ago but I would still consider it left wing

Labour abandoned the first of those principles years ago but I would still consider it left wing

How on earth are New Labour left wing?

Where is the 'nasty' trolling then grum? All I can see is reasoned replies/arguments to the posts on this thread 😕

[quote=grum ]
How on earth are New Labour left wing?
That +gazillions.

Any pretence of being left wing was jetisoned by the windbag neil pillock, and his clause iv rejection, at the behest of murdoch and co-- how grovelling low is that-- that paved the way for the new romantics under tony liar....

bloodynora - you really need to have a word with yourself if you find you're agreeing with Z-11. Nasty trolling is his calling card, and there's some if it on this page - I won't do him the honour of quoting it.

Junkyard - Member
I aceept the UKIP supporter may be so stupid they misunderstood what was said to them [ or did not listen or chose to ignore it which seems to be a right wing trait]

Well I suppose they do say attack is the best form of defence.

[checks Grums Dictionary]

Troll:

[i][b]Troll[/b] (third-person singular simple present trolls, present participle trolling, simple past and past participle trolled)[/i]

[b]To [i]dare[/i] to disagree with or challenge anything that one of the righteous left (Tm) says. [/b]

[i]Thought Crime level five, Newspeak crime level three, indicative of lack of common purpose[/i]

And there you go again.

Still can't see it grum, maybe your being a bit over-sensitive to his posts because he doesn't agree with you 😉

Oh yes you're right I somehow mistook this constructive and thoughtful argument for unpleasant trolling.

no wonder you hate him, he's a class traitor, rather than wallow in what he didn't have, he made something of himself.

whereas you're stuck here blaming everyone else in society for you being a failure

But of course he put a wink at the end so actually it was just a funny joke, and not at all passive-aggressive.

Thought Crime level five, Newspeak crime level three, indicative of lack of [s]c[/s][b]C[/b]ommon [s]p[/s][b]P[/b]urpose

please capitalise properly 😉

Blimey grum you are an easily offended type aren't you. Maybe stay away from internet arguments with people who have opposing views from yours? Just a thought old chap 😉

Apologies Big n daft 🙂

Grum, I'm quietly confident that Junky can and does give pretty much as good as good as he gets, without you needing to fight his corner for him - still, I suppose its just one of those inherently [i]Leftist[/i] characteristics that you feel the need to patronise people by intervening on their behalf whether they need your help or not, isn't it 😉

Blimey grum you are an easily offended type aren't you. Maybe stay away from internet arguments with people who have opposing views from yours? Just a thought old chap

I'm not remotely offended. Why would you think that? Bit of a lame cop-out to suggest that, and to suggest that my views on Z-11 are purely to do with his politics. Plenty on here I disagree with but have respect for.

And no, that was far from the worst example of his trolling. If the rules were applied evenly he would have been banned long ago (please note before anyone starts on about the 'thought police' again that I'm not calling for him to be banned).

Grum, I'm quietly confident that Junky can and does give pretty much as good as good as he gets, without you needing to fight his corner for him - still, I suppose its just one of those inherently Leftist characteristics that you feel the need to patronise people by intervening on their behalf whether they need your help or not, isn't it

I'm sure he can and it has nowt to do with sticking up for Junkyard. Nice passive aggressive little dig/wink again there btw - textbook. 😉

Junkyard is a bloke!!

Haha thats funny.

In making ridiculous assertions bloodynora? Not that you'd know anything about that would you? Although to be fair you've hung around for a response this time...even if its made you look a bit more of an eejit.

Shut up you lot 😀

So let's get this straight: you're not allowed children if you have certain politicial beliefs?

Thin end of the wedge if this is upheld, surely?

Rotherham Council should at least have been through all the red-tape political nonsense with the parents, and got it all thrashed out, before involving the kids directly and splitting up a family.

Morons.

And politicians wonder why public respect for them is eroding.

Morons.

So what's the summary on UKIP?

Not the 'friendly face of racism' or are they the 'friendly face of Xenophobia'?

(So long as your not foreign obviously)

Or actually just immigration NIMBY's?

friendly rednecks ? as long as you look like them !

So let's get this straight: you're not allowed children if you have certain politicial beliefs?

Is what the people involved would like you to think (and UKIP press office who are using this story as a promotional tool in their byelection campaign).

In practice, like all these things, you are hearing only one side of the story. Here, we have two sides, the aggrieved foster carers + UKIP press people who obviously are talking to the press about it, and the social workers and the council who made the decision, who are bound by a zillion forms of confidentiality not to spout out about the reasons for a delicate decision that they make about the welfare of the child.

So really, none of us know whether this is a good decision or not.

I would suspect that given it is an expensive and complicated process finding foster carers, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would ever take kids away from them purely for the reason of them being a member of a political party, so it must be something more complicated. After all, how likely is it that some random whistle blower would call up the council fostering team just to say that person x is a member of UKIP?

[quote=joemarshall ]how likely is it that some random whistle blower would call up the council fostering team just to say that person x is a member of UKIP?
There's a by-election on. Maybe the foster parents had put a UKIP poster in their window.

In practice, like all these things, you are hearing only one side of the story.

You missed Mrs Thacker taking every opportunity to get her 15 minutes of fame then? I didn't notice any particular reluctance on her part to discuss the reasons for this decision.

Or are you actually suggesting that the foster carers haven't had as good a chance to put their case given they're still anonymous, and haven't been busy appearing on daytime TV?

i think theres only one person in the country whos happy with all of this.....

[img] [/img]

First off, it's a habit of the left/far left to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with them. If anyone opposes their way of thinking, they scream, 'bigot' 'racist' 'far right extremist' before a word can be uttered. This is a strategy to shut their opponents up and brand them as outcasts, out of touch etc etc. The one sided imbalance is quite tiresome!

The last Labour government even presided over the introduction of the most breathtakingly ridiculous law, combining racial and religious hatred as one and the same. None of us are born with religious beliefs and religion is entirely optional, race is not. If people want to believe in fictitious irrational nonsense, they rightly deserve to be ridiculed when they impose their ignorant ways on others, or demand special privileges. Personally, I feel that religious belief is a very private thing and should never interfere with others' lives. Conversely, race is not a choice and to discriminate against an individual over their ethnicity is totally out of order! As one particular religion shouts loud, demanding special treatment, our EU leaders have decided that it's easier to shut us up with a new law to make their lives easier. Fairness and democracy are out the window and debate and reason has been permanently slapped down. This is not the behaviour of successful leaders! I think the people who gave Barosso and his chums the Nobel Peace prize have a great sense of humour!

This method of silencing people with valid arguments stifles debate and denies intelligent people the right to air their views. In effect, they kill freedom of speech and democracy. If you are an intelligent person with an open mind, open ears and open eyes, you will have seen many many examples of how the EU leaders run roughshod over democracy. The EU experiment is a breathtakingly expensive failure and the far left leaders are just never going to roll over and accept this. As the old saying goes, "Turkeys never vote for Christmas".

I care about the country I live in and believe in fairness and if you examine what is going on around you, our membership of the EU is clearly detrimental to each and every one of us British citizens (whatever your ethnic origin). UKIP is certainly NOT a racist party, that is a myth bandied about by opposing political interests. The UKIP manifesto is compelling and they repeatedly expose the wastefulness, the corruption and injustice surrounding the goings on in Europe.

The actions of Joyce Thacker and her left wing council clearly shows how prejudiced and unreasonable people of her political persuasion can be. Rotheram council's actions are reprehensible and they need to be called to account, but hopefully, people who once supported them will see THEM as the real biggots!

Socialism seems like the answer for many, it offers a nice friendly face, giving you lots of free stuff when you haven't earned it. If you have ever been unemployed, you will understand the harsh reality that bills still need to be paid. In this situation, the last thing you can do is rack up more debt buy spending on your credit card. One day the bill has to be paid, you have to take responsibility. It is not down to anyone else to bale you out, you are not a victim. You can't blame the global downturn on bankers, it is the fault of successive governments and the corruption that ensues. Deregulation was the cause, the politicians wanting the extra tax revenue to further their own ends. And so the cycle continues.

We need an business environment free of red tape and high costs. We will never achieve this with our huge ongoing financial commitment to the EU. We will never achieve this with big government. We will never achieve this with huge numbers of people dependent on the state. We will never achieve this if we do not control our own borders.

Successive governments have got us into this mess and now the current lot are pandering to Barosso's team, lying to their electorate and doing nowhere near enough to put things right.

First off, it's a habit of the left/far left to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with them. If anyone opposes their way of thinking, they scream, 'bigot' 'racist' 'far right extremist' before a word can be uttered. This is a strategy to shut their opponents up and brand them as outcasts, out of touch etc etc. The one sided imbalance is quite tiresome!

Agreed, the far right are generally much nicer chaps - only a pinko, leftie, communist, hand-wringing, wishy-washy liberal would say otherwise.

We need an business environment free of red tape, high costs. We will never achieve this with our huge ongoing financial commitment to the EU.

so if we pull out of the EU the tens of thousands of new visas required just to keep the eu nationals working in our economy = less red tape ??

is nadine dorries a leftie then ? i thought she was the one calling cameron out of touch

First off, it's a habit of the left/far left to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I'm guessing you've not actually read this thread

Thank god the right wing dont do the personal attacks on those they disagree with but simply politely state their case - I really could have been "victimised" were it not for ther humanitarian restraint and respect for others with different views

GAWD BLESS EM
[ tbh i never read what spongebob says but this is well worth a read - a thread he started

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/detention-of-failed-asylum-seekers-ruled-as-unlawful-wtf#post-2175435
and this , which is the amongst the best STW pwnings

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/detention-of-failed-asylum-seekers-ruled-as-unlawful-wtf#post-2175435

@ aracaer
You would have preffered her to say no comment then? Not explain the decision and do and say nothing.

Despite her media presence a number of folk on here are stil unsure of the reason for the action rather than simply disagreeing with the decision.
As for the foster parents they have been pretty vocal themselves and enegaged with the media themsleves [despite remaining anoymous] as a quick google of the news story will show.
I see no reason to get annoyed because either side has spoken out or to lay blame at only one side for doing this. Its what happens in a media obsessed world.
Is trial by media good - of course not

our membership of the EU is clearly detrimental to each and every one of us British citizens

it's great if you like scientific research.

among many things.

hang on...

you say:

Deregulation was the cause (of the global downturn)

but you also say:

We need an business environment free of red tape

so which is it? do we need more or less regulation/red tape?

and FREE from red tape? - none?

good rant though, i enjoyed it.

Despite her media presence a number of folk on here are stil unsure of the reason for the action rather than simply disagreeing with the decision.

Well, no, we're not unsure, we can simply see that the story told by the council is contradictory!

The children had been living with their foster parents for 8 weeks. Ms Thacker said that the children were on an emergency placement and that they would've been moved to another home in the long-term.

Yet a council spokesman has that there were concerns "regarding the long-term suitability of the carers for these particular children."

This [b]really[/b] doesn't sit well with Thacker's account of the case - she stated that "it was never going to be a long-term placement for the children"; meanwhile her colleague implies that the children were removed because the arrangement wasn't suitable for the long-term.

doesn't add up really does it Junky!

Spongebob - Member

Deregulation was the cause, the politicians wanting the extra tax revenue to further their own ends. And so the cycle continues.

We need an business environment free of red tape and high costs.

I like the efficiency of this post- rather than waiting for someone else to disagree with it, it argues with itself.

lol at spongebob.

sublime swivel eyed loonyness, thanks mate that post made my lunch time.

in fact quite a few people in the office enjoyed it. 8)

I've just had a gander at the UKIP manifesto.

Holey moley, what a load of tripe!

They could cut the whole thing down into a couple sentences - "Yeh, we'll sort everything out by shutting out Johnny Foreigner and dumping the EU. Not gonna explain why that works, it just does

PS -there are no flaws in our plan what so ever!"

I've also had a flick through it. There's some fantastic bits:

Restore British values, scrap quotas and political correctness and return to meritocratic principles

Old Britain was a meritocracy? Surely it was more about aristocracy?

Tackle extremist Islam by banning the burqa or veiled niqab in public buildings and certain private buildings

Because banning things in private makes total sense and also the veil is the sole reason extremist islam exists.

Overall there's a mix of stuff designed to sound reasonable (which costs loads of money which they don't explain the source of) and a load of barmy xenophobic stuff. A lovely mix of fiscal fiction and dislike of everything non-British.

When I lived in North London, a local party also tried a similarly mixing the mental with the impossible approach. I saved their prospectus:

[url= ]Page 1[/url]

[url= ]Page 2[/url]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/ukip-members-may-write-to-newspaper-2012112750786

in fact quite a few people in the office enjoyed it. 8)

Are you still a delivery driver for Social Worker?

This thread seems to have reached the final mocking stage. So, in summary, do the lefties here support the decision, oppose it or maybe even pretend it didn't happen?

Neither - there's not enough hard credible evidence to form a reasoned opinion. It needs investigating, it could well be very bad for the council. But it could also be very bad for the Foster Parents in question.

Most of the guff out there in the media is just nob jockey political points scoring rather than the actual concern for the welfare of the children.

This thread seems to have reached the final mocking stage.

wear the big hat, or half hour in the stocks....you decide...

So it turns out, pretty much as you'd expect, that there's more to this story than we were initially told:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed

Still doesn't answer the questions, why were the kids placed where they were, why was the removal initiated after the political party membership revealed, are the now separated siblings in a care setting that meets the language/ cultural needs, why can a social worker on the case be a member of UKIP but not the carers?

So I totally agree

So it turns out, pretty much as you'd expect, that there's more to this story than we were initially told:

So basic story still stands but even more evidence of poor job by social services. Did the Guardian have some space to fill?

So basic story still stands but even more evidence of poor job by social services. Did the Guardian have some space to fill?

That's a very bizarre reading of the article.

If these reasons for the removal of the children were the primary ones, why has there been no mention of them up till now?

They weren't mentioned to the foster parents, the interview with Ms Thacker made no mention of them, the council statement made no mention of them, all the way through it has been the UKIP membership that has been talked up or down.

Fact remains, 'well, UKIP have racist policies'... that is what the Social Worker said whilst informing the family of the removal. Not, we have a better placement for them, nor there is a risk to them. There has been no denial from anyone at the council that this was the given reasoning.

Seems someone had a bluesky party and this is the resulting smokescreen - Nothing like a bit of 'retrospective justification' - No doubt someone has only just finished back dating some briefing notes and minutes to confirm this new story.

Plus whatever the best reason for removing the children turns out to be, the whole incident has highlighted institutional prejudice within Rotherham social services. It's a bit like saying ''I didn't discriminate against you on the grounds of XYZ, it was on the basis of ABC. The fact that I hate you because you also happen to be XYZ is merely coincidence/convenient.'

There were also fears the children's birth parents knew or might be able to find out where the foster parents lived. Though both the birth mother and father claim to continue to have supervised contact with some of their other children, it is believed social workers do not want the parents to know exactly where the children are living because of safety concerns.

Why didn't social sevices just use this as their primary reason to remove the children, don't mention UKIP at all. It would be perfectly reasonable, no fuss no scandal no nothing.

Maybe they did, maybe the UKIP thing was way down the list of reasons given, but people have jumped on it for some reason.

In the interests of fairness,I think they had to highlight it though,didn't they?

Absolutely, we wouldn't want to be left with the wrong impression.

After all,the fosterers are UKIP supporters,so they must be whiter than white 😉

In a purely metaphorical sense,of course.

I thought you were going to leave your choice of words open to interpretation - it would have been interesting to see the reactions! 😉

Still doesn't answer the questions, why were the kids placed where they were,

why was the removal initiated after the political party membership revealed

Well, supposedly it wasn't - it was because they were worried that a)the birth family would be able to find the kids or knew where they were.
b)the kids needed carers who could speak their language (which seems fair enough if you have suitable carers - which I guess is more likely in Rotherham)

are the now separated siblings in a care setting that meets the language/ cultural needs,

Hard to know as for pretty obvious reasons they can't tell you where the kids are now.

why can a social worker on the case be a member of UKIP but not the carers?

Well, it kind of turns out that they can, and maybe that the UKIP membership isn't really that relevant generally.

Having said that, whilst it seems like the main thing was a desire to find a culturally suitable placement (ie. one where the carers would know the same language as the children), and to avoid the children being found by their birth parents, you could argue that due to the local situation - large population of migrants, massive publicity in their home countries of how British social services are 'stealing their children' and taking them away from their culture, having Roma kids fostered by members of an anti-immigrant British party would actually be a bad thing, as it would further fuel all that publicity, and could have a real negative effect on the relations of council + social services with other members of the Roma community. It is perhaps more believable that people stealing children and taking them away from their home culture would include people who are members of a party that is explicitly anti multiculturalism, anti-immigration etc. And it is obviously in the interests of all Roma children, including those in this case that good relations with the social services are maintained.

+1 for joemarshall

Why didn't social sevices just use this as their primary reason to remove the children, don't mention UKIP at all. It would be perfectly reasonable, no fuss no scandal no nothing.

Because they hadn't thought of it at the time of course!

could have a real negative effect on the relations of council + social services with other members of the Roma community

Because the overriding principle is that the welfare of the child will be the paramount consideration. Moving them overnight without transition and separating the siblings without any pressing need cannot be compatible with this aim.

None of the press articles have really highlighted the multi-country issue here - as I understand it, whilst this is a bit of a minor political issue here, back where they originally came from the dealings between UK social services and the Roma community is a really big front page news thing, and that means that it is also a really big thing for the local Roma immigrants and causing real problems locally due to mistrust.