Political freedom and Rotherham

[Guest]

I see that the lunatics have really taken over the asylum and that the Thought Police are alive and well in that bigoted organisation known as Rotherham Council Social Services.

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

Perhaps if Social Services focussed on the real issues instead of some dreamt up facile dogma then children would actually have better protection.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/24/police-failed-to-act-on-rotherham-child-sex-grooming-for-years/

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

On the face it of it, it does sound rather absurd. Unfortunately many people and organisations (public and private) have their priorities skewed by political ideology, unrealistic expectations, and often varying degrees of incompetence.

[ahinton]

I see that the lunatics have really taken over the asylum and that the Thought Police are alive and well in that bigoted organisation known as Rotherham Council Social Services.

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

Perhaps if Social Services focussed on the real issues instead of some dreamt up facile dogma then children would actually have better protection.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/24/police-failed-to-act-on-rotherham-child-sex-grooming-for-years/

Stands back and waits for the usual diatribe from the Forum's very own Thought Police.

If that is your genuine expectation, what is your specific motive in extending the invitation?

I realise that this is not exactly an on-topic response but it nevertheless seems to me that it might not be too bad an idea to get this one out of the way before such responses are indeed forthcoming...

[Bryn]

Seemed quite outrageous to me. I was not surprised to hear Farago call for "heads to roll" at Rotherham. However, when it was later explained that the placement was always an emergency one, not a long-term placement, and that Rotherham Social Services had previously been criticised for not paying enough attention to the cultural and ethnic needs of fostered children, their decision appeared somewhat less ill-founded. Perhaps the forthcoming elections in Rotherham have some bearing on how this story has gained prominence.

[MrGongGong]

Sounds daft at first
BUT
given that the Kippers have a stance against multiculturalism hardly surprising in the circumstances
would you want to live with people who don't respect your rights ?

and

don't we have a duty these days to inform on people with "dodgy" ideas ?

UKIP are a receptacle for some rather unpleasant people (as are other political orgaisations)

which is NOT to say that it's a great idea
BUT seems like a bit of muck stirring for political ends

[ahinton]

Seemed quite outrageous to me. I was not surprised to hear Farago call for "heads to roll" at Rotherham. However, when it was later explained that the placement was always an emergency one, not a long-term placement, and that Rotherham Social Services had previously been criticised for not paying enough attention to the cultural and ethnic needs of fostered children, their decision appeared somewhat less ill-founded. Perhaps the forthcoming elections in Rotherham have some bearing on how this story has gained prominence.

Indeed - but the nature and extent of the emergency in the alleged "emergency placement" response could probably do with a little investigation in its own right; are Social Services in Rotherham so strapped for placements that a risk such as this one simply had to be taken because there was no alternative? It somehow doesn't quite add up, to me, anyway. The Social Services spokeswoman interviewed on Today was unusually reticent in her responses and paused long before providing each of them; she denied that the foster parents were asked how they voted omitted to provide evidence of how Social Services nevertheless knew how they did so - in other words, she declined to offer information (not that she was asked to do so) as to whether the couple themselves had revealed their voting sympathies or how else they got hold of the information. This is not as black and white (sorry!) as it seems, methinks.

[french frank]

There are two issues here that should be considered separately

1. A couple who belong to UKIP willingly accepted children of ethnic minority origin for fostering (not adoption, mind you - just temporary fostering). Should the children have been removed when it was discovered the foster parents were members of UKIP?

I would be in no doubt: No, they shouldn't.

2. The council has a fostering policy to place children in homes which are considered suitable to the children's needs, including their cultural needs. Would it be sensible to take into consideration the ethnic origins of the children and prospective fosterers?

Well, perhaps, initially. But if there are too few foster parents of a cultural/ethnic match then the general good character and stable situation of the prospective parents should be the factor. If there was an adequate number of fosterers, then membership of UKIP might at a later stage be considered a way a ruling out a couple - all other factors having been equal.

But if the council has such a policy and disregarded it when placing the children, then it certainly seems to me quite outrageous to remove the children if they appear to be happily settled. And I would expect to see disciplinary action - even sackings for such insensitivity and incompetence.

[scottycelt]

I think some confuse UKIP with the BNP. If it had been the latter organisation concerned then the council may well had a reasonable case to take no chances with the welfare of the children under the circumstances.

It's surely the BNP that attracts the most 'unpleasant' type, not UKIP.

I consider UKIP to be just plain nutty, and if people wish to vote for the nutty-ones, that is their perfect right.

In truth, we probably all do (vote for nutty-ones) in the end ...

[MrGongGong]

Would the same thing happen if the couple were active members of a revolutionary marxist organisation ?

(I"M NOT BY THE WAY)

It seems to me that the Social Services department can only lose .........

UKIP are quite clever in dressing themselves up in the clothes of "respectable politics" though many (NOT ALL !) of their members are a "couple of cents flatter" than the BNP , personally I wouldn't trust those who are actively involved in such an organisation (as with SWP etc) with vulnerable children at all.

[Resurrection Man]

If that is your genuine expectation, what is your specific motive in extending the invitation?

I realise that this is not exactly an on-topic response but it nevertheless seems to me that it might not be too bad an idea to get this one out of the way before such responses are indeed forthcoming...

A fair point and offending sentence removed.

All responses gratefully received.

[ahinton]

I think some confuse UKIP with the BNP. If it had been the latter organisation concerned then the council may well had a reasonable case to take no chances with the welfare of the children under the circumstances.

It's surely the BNP that attracts the most 'unpleasant' type, not UKIP.

I consider UKIP to be just plain nutty, and if people wish to vote for the nutty-ones, that is their perfect right.

In truth, we probably all do (vote for nutty-ones) in the end ...

Does anyone really confuse UKIP with BNP? I doubt it but, even if the odd exception might prove your right, I wonder just how many such people are on the foster parent register? A vanishingly small number, I imagine and, in any case, I suspect that declared BNP members / supporters might have quite abit of trouble getting on to the foster parent register in the first place.

[MrGongGong]

I wonder what the REAL story is ?
Given that this has been condemned by more or less ALL political parties
there is the wonderful irony of the Kippers having to complain to the European Court of Human Rights

[ahinton]

Would the same thing happen if the couple were active members of a revolutionary marxist organisation ?

I don't know, but I cannot imagine that it would do so if such a couple had evidenced no obvious risk of compromise to the cultural and racial identities of the foster children as has been alleged in this case. I think that, if the same thing were nevertheless to happen in such circumstances, it would thrown into the arena the perceived suitability of anyone as foster parents who would declare - or be found out for - membership of any political party.

It seems to me that the Social Services department can only lose

And who will fund the losses so incurred?

UKIP are quite clever in dressing themselves up in the clothes of "respectable politics" though many (NOT ALL !) of their members are a "couple of cents flatter" than the BNP , personally I wouldn't trust those who are actively involved in such an organisation (as with SWP etc) with vulnerable children at all.

But would you necessarily trust - and to what extent - declared or discovered members of any other political party in such a rôle?

[ahinton]

I wonder what the REAL story is ?
Given that this has been condemned by more or less ALL political parties
there is the wonderful irony of the Kippers having to complain to the European Court of Human Rights

Yes, that one's not lost on me either. What's not yet been declared, however (or at least as far as I know) is how Social Services in Rotherham found out about the couple's UKIP membership and we've still not been told yet (again, as far as I know) whether the couple simply vote UKIP (and how often they might have done so) or whether they are actual paid-up members of UKIP; what might be thought of such a couple who support UKIP whether or not they're paid-up members but who have never voted for UKIP only because no UKIP candidate has been fielded in their constituency in local or general elections? There are plenty more nuances that can serve only to make this entire charade even more complex.

[MrGongGong]

And who will fund the losses so incurred?

I didn't mean financially at all

But would you necessarily trust - and to what extent - declared or discovered members of any other political party in such a rôle?

I'm not likely to trust anyone who believes in the farce of party politics, left, right or the delusional Kippers