Political freedom and Rotherham

[Boilk]

The fact is that UKIP, whether or not "one agrees with" its policies, has always been and remains a minority political party in UK; the extent to which British voters believe its policies to be rational and beneficial to anyone is surely most accurately and tellingly measured by the number of votes UKIP generates in elections and the numbers of Parliamentary seats and local authority positions that it holds.

That British voter belief is tempered by vested interests. In this context, a party's legitimacy and relevance is not "accurately and tellingly measured by the number of votes". Elections are rarely a population's objective response to its genuine governmental needs at any time. The British people are as much brainwashed sheep of their mass media machine as people in most developed countries. It's just done more slickly here than, say, America. Thankfully the internet is very slowly breaking the mould.

Our media machine has never given UKIP as much of a platform, in terms of time or serious attention, as it has the other main parties. And when it has given coverage (to create the illusion of being non partisan), it's usually done either (a) when some internal squabble comes about; or (b) in a manner which subtly portrays them as a lunatic fringe winning the protest vote.

You don't have to be a UKIP supporter to have seen this media trend over several years.

When we get this "accurately and tellingly measured" democratic vote, let's ask ourselves if most of the floating voters (the majority of the electorate) made an informed decision (probably at the 11th hour) based on knowledge of the policies of ALL serious national parties, or whether they perceived as credible only the Big Three parties that were constantly in the media spotlight (and, of late, were invited to the televised leader debates).

I'm sure many more people would also vote for the Green Party if they got the same pre-election media exposure as the Big Three!

[Bryn]

Re #36

It's such a pity that the <doh> emoticon is no longer available on these boards.

[Bryn]

Not late at all. I'd read the earlier message, naturally - but if you look, my message was to Bax.

Which was the post immediately before mine. <doh>

Poor Simon, always assumes he must be the center of attention. Actually my comment was a response to the engineer's late-coming too, not just that of the oily rag.

[Simon]

Actually my comment was a response to the engineer's late-coming too, not just that of the oily rag.

Yeah. Right. Course it was.

[Simon]

Reverting for a moment to the thread's subject, I see from the Beeb's website that the decision seems to be receiving censure from everywhere, which is reassuring. Though I expect some nutcase will pop up and support it at some point.

Addition: it gets more surreal the more you investigate! The allegedly "racist" UKIP that these foster carers support, is fielding a black candidate in the forthcoming elections. And the female foster parent is of mixed race herself.

[french frank]

As regards UKIP, if you'd like to provide an example of any of their policies from their manifesto page, and then describe how you think it irrational, I'd be delighted to read your views.

"Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights."

That could be thought 'irrational' if you then have to reinvent the wheel.

The ECHR is not a foreign invention: it was originally drafted on the basis of the rights and freedoms of the UK. Like many individuals, UKIP regards the HRA as a 'disaster' because judgements have been made that it disagrees with. But any Bill of Rights would have to accord with international concepts of human rights and why should it be supposed that British judges would take a different view on such matters?

Addition: it gets more surreal the more you investigate! The allegedly "racist" UKIP that these foster carers support, is fielding a black candidate in the forthcoming elections. And the female foster parent is of mixed race herself

So it's agreed? Someone goofed.

[scottycelt]

Reverting for a moment to the thread's subject, I see from the Beeb's website that the decision seems to be receiving censure from everywhere, which is reassuring. Though I expect some nutcase will pop up and support it at some point.

Addition: it gets more surreal the more you investigate! The allegedly "racist" UKIP that these foster carers support, is fielding a black candidate in the forthcoming elections. And the female foster parent is of mixed race herself.

Well, yes, that was my exact point in suggesting that some deluded souls within Rotherham Social Services may have equated UKIP with the BNP!

There can be no other rational explanation unless the story turns out to be mostly rubbish. (frankly, just as likely)

[Mr Pee]

hummmmmm so that's ignoring the science then

Ignoring which science? The case for man-made climate change, although widely accepted- (but then once upon a time people believed the earth was flat)- is looking increasingly flimsy these days:-

http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

So why shouldn't UKIP adopt a sceptical approach? It suits Government to perpetuate the climate change theory, because it gives them a damn good excuse to clobber us with "green" taxes.

Bigoted and irrational (though I love the libertarian wiggling ........)

I don't see that approach as bigoted or irrational; neither do much of the UK population, or indeed the gay community:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9317177/Gay-marriage-poll-suggests-doubts-in-gay-community.html

I also relish a war with Iceland

Now you're just being silly. For a change.

[MrGongGong]

Nurse, he's out of bed again ..................

I guess the Kippers all live on the tops of hills

Deluded nonsense indeed

Culture ?

Education ?

all bonkers nonsense which makes Gove seem like a reasonable bloke

[french frank]

So it's agreed? Someone goofed.

As this has been queried with me , I'd like to clarify: I meant that if Rotherham council has guidelines not to place immigrant children for fostering with parents who may hold anti-immigrant views (whatever you think about such a guideline), it is surely their duty to discover such views before they place the children.

Placing them and then taking them away 'because they belong to UKIP' will, on the basis of fair treatment (natural justice?), be a gift to UKIP.


Could I remind people that they are free to condemn/insult any views expressed here by members, but it is against the House Rules to extend insults to the members themselves. Thank you.

[MrGongGong]

As this has been queried with me , I'd like to clarify: I meant that if Rotherham council has guidelines not to place immigrant children for fostering with parents who may hold anti-immigrant views (whatever you think about such a guideline), it is surely their duty to discover such views before they place the children.

Placing them and then taking them away 'because they belong to UKIP' will, on the basis of fair treatment (natural justice?), be a gift to UKIP.

indeed

but (as I said) I wonder what the truth of this is ?

[french frank]

indeed

but (as I said) I wonder what the truth of this is ?

Yes - but there's what the truth of the matter IS, what the truth is presented as being and what 'people' believe to be the truth.

You've only got to read the fearless journalism of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express to realise that ...

[ahinton]

yes - but there's what the truth of the matter is, what the truth is presented as being and what 'people' believe to be the truth.

You've only got to read the fearless journalism of the daily mail and the daily express to realise that ...

must i?...

[french frank]

I'd like to declare that a capital response!

[Ferretfancy]

I understand from news bulletins that the couple in question are one time Labour voters, and have successfully fostered other children in the past. Now they have changed their allegiance to UKIP, and the council has stepped in, so they are effectively being punished for using their democratic right to change their minds.

People who foster have to have very good personal attributes. They deal with young people who are often very disturbed, and this work requires a degree of loving patience that would be beyond many of us. Perhaps they should be the politicians.