UKIP couple lose foster children, and quite right to. Options

[TallDarkAndHands...]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20483829

Rotherham Council are quite right to remove these children. Such a couple are obviously a danger to society.

[Penelope]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20483829

Rotherham Council are quite right to remove these children. Such a couple are obviously a danger to society.

Why??

[motormad]

Sorry TDH but I don't understand this?
A family have had their children taken away? Because someone disagrees with their political views?
UKIP is not the BNP.. and as for Tony Blair, he can bugger off giving lectures on behalf of the banks he gave our money to.

[JeffG]

Why??

I rather think that TDH was employing irony here.

[Weavers Walk]

and as for Tony Blair, he can bugger off giving lectures on behalf of the banks he gave our money to.

You might mean Gordon Brown. Unless you can link to any banks Blair gave money to.

UKIP is not the BNP..

Dr Alan Sked, UKIP’s founder leader, said: “They [UKIP] are racist
and have been infected by the far right” Then he left in disgust.

Now read on...Click Here

[TallDarkAndHands...]

You might mean Gordon Brown. Unless you can link to any banks Blair gave money to.



Dr Alan Sked, UKIP’s founder leader, said: “They [UKIP] are racist
and have been infected by the far right” Then he left in disgust.

Now read on...Click Here

Yep - UKIP don't conform to the Politically Correct views of some so they must be racist. Personally I think we should open our borders and allow in several hundred million new immigrants. Who are these UKIP people to say who can and can't come into this Country? As for the couple - as they are members of this party they should not be allowed anywhere near kids and if they have any biological children they should be removed and put in a home that is in favour of europe and mass immigration.

[On the edge]

Hope the review goes very much wider. I found this chilling and quite frightening particularly after listening to the Head of Social Services attempt to defend this.

Some time back, I was at a public meeting in Newbury where someone asked about the Police checks made on anyone who wanted to be involved with children. One of our Councillors explained that the check was merely against the Police record for any previous convictions or formal warnings. That re assured many in the audience, because this information would already be known to the subject. He then went on to add that the record might also include 'appropriate' ad-hoc comments from Social Workers - which wouldn't necessarily have been mentioned to the subject.

There was some subsequent debate, and the Councillor could see nothing wrong with that at all. It finished me with him and his party. It not the job of public servants to make and implement social policy. Equally, it is a fundamental freedom that everyone has the right to be tried by his peers - not judged by officials sitting behind locked doors! Star chamber indeed.

Post Script - it seems to me that 'the best interests of the children' has become yet another coverall excuse in exactly the same way as 'its for safety reasons'.

[Jayjay]

I personnally think the council was wrong to take the children away from a loving home. But did they have a lot of choice when the couple openly belonged to a political party that the leader of the country called racist?

[Squelchy]

Yep - UKIP don't conform to the Politically Correct views of some so they must be racist. Personally I think we should open our borders and allow in several hundred million new immigrants. Who are these UKIP people to say who can and can't come into this Country? As for the couple - as they are members of this party they should not be allowed anywhere near kids and if they have any biological children they should be removed and put in a home that is in favour of europe and mass immigration.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[Rusty Bullet]

David Cameron famously described UKIP thus:

[it is full of] "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists"

Robert Kilroy-Silk said:

"I'm ashamed to be a member of the party,"

Weren't these three poor children from 'ethnic' backgrounds? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Penelope]

I personnally think the council was wrong to take the children away from a loving home. But did they have a lot of choice when the couple openly belonged to a political party that the leader of the country called racist?

Can you explain how, precisely, ukip are racist?

[JeffG]

Can you explain how, precisely, ukip are racist?

Well, they don't like the Belgians...

[Jayjay]

Can you explain how, precisely, ukip are racist?

I do not think they are. But Cameron, by his xomments, obviously does.

If the council left the kids with a family who openly support a party that the leader of the country judged as racist they would be condemed. If they take them away, as they have done, they have been condemed. I really do not think the council should be blamed as they were in a no win situation.

[On the edge]

I do not think they are. But Cameron, by his xomments, obviously does.

If the council left the kids with a family who openly support a party that the leader of the country judged as racist they would be condemed. If they take them away, as they have done, they have been condemed. I really do not think the council should be blamed as they were in a no win situation.

The Labour party have been termed socialist, the Conservatives lower than vermin, and so on. This was certainly a no win situation for Rochdale Council - its public servants had no vires whatsoever to have made such a decision which if such was actually needed should have been made by their political masters. Frankly, this is an issue about management and competence - as usual sadly lacking in those employed by the social work industry.

[Jayjay]

The Labour party have been termed socialist, the Conservatives lower than vermin, and so on. This was certainly a no win situation for Rochdale Council - its public servants had no vires whatsoever to have made such a decision which if such was actually needed should have been made by their political masters. Frankly, this is an issue about management and competence - as usual sadly lacking in those employed by the social work industry.

Being a socialist or a rat is not against the law, racism is.

[On the edge]

Being a socialist or a rat is not against the law, racism is.

Be very very careful what you are saying. The Prime Minister did not say that they were and UKIP are not either. What you are doing is repeating the errors made by many causing Lord Mcalpine pain. You may fundamentally disagree with the UKIP position, as indeed I do, but it is a legitimate point and one that needs to be debated. Lets not throw such accusations. Its ungrounded comments like this that bring us to this issue in the first place.

[Biker1]

Being a socialist or a rat is not against the law, racism is.

Having a strong policy on immigration is not racist.

[GMR]

The couple were former Labour members. I think this was political and it backfired. I now think heads should roll. I was also pleased that ALL the political parties have condemned the councils actions. Labour were first on the scene condemning their own council.

Another question; why is it all the nutty councils who have gone political correctness mad are Labour?

[Squelchy]

Be very very careful what you are saying. The Prime Minister did not say that they were

The actual quote was... "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" at best, a third of each.

You may fundamentally disagree with the UKIP position, as indeed I do, but it is a legitimate point of view

No it's not. They are entitled to hold their views, but that doesn't mean anyone has to either respect them or respect those views. Does it?

What you are doing is repeating the errors made by many causing Lord Mcalpine pain.

McAlpine played a blinder. Back in 1999 in "The New Machiavelli: The Art of Politics in Business” he wrote: "using all the tricks that go with that trade – such as the false defeat: when a person seems to lose, in order to gain public sympathy, or the false triumph: where a person seems to win in order to appear strong – thus giving credibility to any number of dubious propositions that person may wish to make in the future. Neither of these ploys are examples of the use of true facts, rather of false facts given to the media to chew on, much as a dog chews on a bone. Another useful ploy is the false accusation. First, create a situation where you are wrongly accused. Then, at a convenient moment, arrange for the false accusation to be shown to be false beyond all doubt. Those who have made accusations against both the company and its management become discredited. Further accusations will then be treated with great suspicion"

[Jayjay]

Be very very careful what you are saying. The Prime Minister did not say that they were and UKIP are not either. What you are doing is repeating the errors made by many causing Lord Mcalpine pain. You may fundamentally disagree with the UKIP position, as indeed I do, but it is a legitimate point and one that needs to be debated. Lets not throw such accusations. Its ungrounded comments like this that bring us to this issue in the first place.

Why would I have to be careful what I say? I do not believe UKIP is racist party as I made clear in my previous post. David Cameron clearly said in a BBC radio interview that he thought UKIP were rascist (along with being fruitcakes). If you are saying this interview did not exisit or it was Rory Breemner, why did the party retract the statement?