Political freedom and Rotherham

[Anna]

It seems the children involved are Polish. A Rotherham spokesman said: 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 They were placed with the foster parents as an emergency measure, they have now been placed with (according to the newspapers) "an indigenous British couple" Note, not a Polish couple. I think some social worker in Rotherham has got his knickers in a twist but, having said that, the priority should be the children, and, if they were happy in the care of the first couple then why not just leave them there until long time foster care was sorted out? Crazy.

[scottycelt]

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.

Well I can only think that those on the council were confused. They obviously considered that membership of UKIP had 'racist' overtones which is generally associated with the BNP. I feel sure UKIP will have quite a few members from ethnic backgrounds like other parties. There was certainly a woman with a distinctly foreign accent speaking on its behalf the other day on television

I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Rotherham Social Services is a hotbed of Europhilia which, of course, is an alternative explanation assuming that Mr GG is wrong and the true story is just as reported ... which is a huge and probably naive assumption regarding the UK media.

[Lateralthinking1]

I worry that people who have such an undeveloped understanding of immigration policy could ever be the heads of childrens services. My concern is less that decisions of this kind are overtly political and more that they emanate from intellectual, and possibly emotional, immaturity. How on earth do these people sail through all of the personality tests? The system is flawed.

There are perhaps 40 or 50 reasons for having immigration constraints. One is racist. Admittedly it is often given excessive weight. But a direct, exclusive, correlation between immigration constraints and racism belongs, if anywhere, to the 1970s and probably not even there. It certainly does not belong to a vibrant multicultural society which, while having responsibilities, is under economic strain. There are also 40 or 50 reasons for not having any constraints on immigration but that is not a relevant point in this case.

One key argument in favour of immigration constraints is that they could support and enhance social cohesion across ethnic boundaries. I am no fan at all of Gordon Brown. However, when he spoke about British jobs for British workers, he did not mean jobs only for families who have been living in Chipping Norton since the 1700s. There are hundreds of examples of children being placed with adults of a different ethnic background. Some have gone on to become Olympians. And others have really achieved.

[Boilk]

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 ...

UKIP's central stance on Europe (reduce the UK's EU contribution; better still get out altogether and prosper by trading freely with the whole world, like Norway and Switzerland do) seems to have been consistent for as long as I can remember. The meandering policies of the other parties change seemingly from year to year. In this respect, UKIP are probably the least nutty.

Is there not a whole faction of Tory career politicians who are ideologically far more aligned with UKIP?

[ahinton]

I didn't mean financially at all

Maybe not, but costs there will be, without a doubt.

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

By that do you mean trust specifically as actual or potential foster parents? because, if so, that would narrow the field very considerably indeed, would it not? - so much so, indeed, that Social Services organisations the length and breadth of the country would all be permanently struggling to find any placements at all!

[scottycelt]

The meandering policies of the other parties change seemingly from year to year. In this respect, UKIP are probably the least nutty.

Or simply the most consistently nutty ... ?

[MrGongGong]

By that do you mean trust specifically as actual or potential foster parents? because, if so, that would narrow the field very considerably indeed, would it not? - so much so, indeed, that Social Services organisations the length and breadth of the country would all be permanently struggling to find any placements at all!

Oh I don't know
look at the turnout for the recent police election malarkey

Having just heard a load of them (left , right and nutty !) on R4 I really do wonder how they take themselves so seriously all the fake offence is pathetic
it's not as if they represent anything important like Serialism or Baroque performance practice

[ahinton]

I worry that people who have such an undeveloped understanding of immigration policy could ever be the heads of childrens services.

As well you might, but don't forget that it's not just down to the Social Services staff themselves; they have to use lawyers all the time and, in this particular instance, the spokesperson confirmed that legal advice had been taken over this issue before actions were implemented.

My concern is less that decisions of this kind are overtly political and more that they emanate from intellectual, and possibly emotional, immaturity. How on earth do these people sail through all of the personality tests? The system is flawed.

I don't doubt it but to put it right you'd probably need to make a clean sweep of the staff from top to bottom and the lawyers and other attached advisers involved and someone would have to be trusted to do that correctly and appropriately in every Social Services department in the land; who'd pay for that? You'd also need independent regulators and an ombudsman service for when things go wrong, at yet another cost.

There are perhaps 40 or 50 reasons for having immigration constraints. One is racist. Admittedly it is often given excessive weight. But a direct, exclusive, correlation between immigration constraints and racism belongs, if anywhere, to the 1970s and probably not even there. It certainly does not belong to a vibrant multicultural society which, while having responsibilities, is under economic strain. There are also 40 or 50 reasons for not having any constraints on immigration but that is not a relevant point in this case.

One key argument in favour of immigration constraints is that they could support and enhance social cohesion across ethnic boundaries. I am no fan at all of Gordon Brown. However, when he spoke about British jobs for British workers, he did not mean jobs only for families who have been living in Chipping Norton since the 1700s. There are hundreds of examples of children being placed with adults of a different ethnic background. Some have gone on to become Olympians. And others have really achieved.

I take most of your points; the prospect of living in Chipping Norton seems to be becoming forever less tenable and if the brickbats thrown at it get any more frequent and/or heavy it might start to affect property prices and services in the area, at which the residents might begin to feel like fighting back!

[Simon]

Having now heard more of the story on the local news, it's clear that some apparatchik in Social Services has made a massive error of judgement.

The people have been successful foster carers for years, and UKIP members for about four years. They have already made efforts to place the children in a suitable school and attend to their cultural and religious needs.

The question could well be asked as to why British Social Services, hard-pressed to fund elderly care and properly look after the children already on their books, should be having to fund such things for yet more foreign children, but that isn't the fault of the kids and if they are here they deserve the best we can do for them.

Whether one agrees with them or not, UKIP policies are rational, non-racist and would benefit Britain and all its people, except those making a killing working within the EU bureauracy. But UKIP also maintains that multiculturalism has been an experiment that hasn't worked, and that mass immigration of people from other cultures is harming the UK, and it is this improperly-understood and overtly political point, apparently, that was the catalyst for the decision, outweighing any concern as to the safety and welfare of, and the love shown to, the children. I bet that Social Worker and a few on here would get on really well...

::::::::

I've been amused by GongGong's efforts to have his cake and eat it. Talk about living in a parallel universe!

[Lateralthinking1]

Thank you for your comments ahinton. I feel that we are broadly in agreement on many of the key considerations.

On Simon's point about UKIP, many books could be written about the meaning of multiculturalism and similar concepts. One definition perhaps is that of various cultures living side by side, each in a kind of self-appointed apartheid. That doesn't appear to be the preference of the couple involved here. Their actions suggest that they believe in an integration of different cultures.

There might be an ideal in some minds of non-indigenous cultures integrating to such an extent that their own cultures are then effectively diluted into nothing. This, I think, would be to spurn the Indian and Chinese restaurants, among many other things, and also to argue that indigenous people are identifiably cohesive. Anyone considering widespread patterns of behaviour, and indeed the diversity of positions on this forum, would probably view that as theoretical. Farage is a blunt individual, and his views are not shared by many, but I feel instinctively that he is nuanced. It appears that the "authorities" in Rotherham were not so here.

[ahinton]

Oh I don't know
look at the turnout for the recent police election malarkey

Having just heard a load of them (left , right and nutty !) on R4 I really do wonder how they take themselves so seriously all the fake offence is pathetic

OK, but what to do? This kind of problem won't go away purely as a consequence of expressions of contempt for all involved...

it's not as if they represent anything important like Serialism or Baroque performance practice

Well, I don't know so much about that; there'll surely come a point at which criticism is levelled at some hapless Social Services department for placing children with suspected but as yet uncharged serial killers and then they'll find themselves even more between a Baroque and a hard place than they are now - and shooting the critics in the HIPP will achieve nothing other than making matters worse. Seriously, though, can you imagine how much worse it might be if some of these people DID represent such phenomena?(!)...

[MrGongGong]

I've been amused by GongGong's efforts to have his cake and eat it. Talk about living in a parallel universe!

Oh Simon you are such a wit

Parallel universe ? I'm sure you have plenty of "expert" knowledge on that one

But UKIP also maintains that multiculturalism has been an experiment that hasn't worked,

This is obviously true
just look at the LSO for example , all those non British musicians are ruining what was a great orchestra eeeeerrrrrrrrr oooops

UKIP policies would kill off many of our small food producers ......... Arbroath Smokies , Yorkshire FOrced Rhubarb etc etc

[ahinton]

Having now heard more of the story on the local news, it's clear that some apparatchik in Social Services has made a massive error of judgement.

Probably so, but only on the basis of prior legal advice, so the net of responsibility for that error of judgement would appear to be cast rather wider than a mere member or two of the department itself.

The people have been successful foster carers for years, and UKIP members for about four years. They have already made efforts to place the children in a suitable school and attend to their cultural and religious needs.

OK, but how and at what point did Social Services find out about their UKIP membership? - and is it actual membership per se or have they merely voted for the party during that period? If they've a lengthy track record of successful foster caring, how come the UKIP issue has not arisen previously? Have they assumed care responsibility for anyone else since becoming UKIP members? and, if so, how did that happen and why is it not being taken into consideration?

The question could well be asked as to why British Social Services, hard-pressed to fund elderly care and properly look after the children already on their books, should be having to fund such things for yet more foreign children, but that isn't the fault of the kids and if they are here they deserve the best we can do for them.

You partially redeem yourself in your last clause here, but Social Services doesn't fund this at all; the taxpayer does. Are you implying that all immigration should cease forthwith in order that only those "foreign" elderly and children in need of care who are already in Britain be looked after via Social Services departments in future?

Whether one agrees with them or not, UKIP policies are rational, non-racist and would benefit Britain and all its people, except those making a killing working within the EU bureauracy. But UKIP also maintains that multiculturalism has been an experiment that hasn't worked, and that mass immigration of people from other cultures is harming the UK, and it is this naive and overtly political point, apparently, that was the catalyst for the decision, outweighing any concern as to the safety and welfare of, and the love shown to, the children.

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. It is clear that most of its members are not "racist" in the sense or to the extent that the majority of BNP members are but, again, the question of whether its policies would benefit Britain and all its people (presumably including all its immigrants) is merely academic and will remain so until UKIP has managed to field sufficient successful candidates in local and general elections for those policies to begin to acquire any realistic opportunity to make a practical impact on the governance of Britain at national or local levels.

It's a side issue here but, when you write of "immigrants", should you not have to include me in that category once Scotland becomes independent (if indeed it does)? If so, your view of my rights will be altered as a direct consequence of the outcome of a referendum in which I will presumably not be entitled to participate; shall I start packing my bags now?

[ahinton]

Parallel universe

Since parallel to precisely what has yet to be explained, I'd overlook that for now...

[Simon]

This is obviously true
just look at the LSO for example , all those non British musicians are ruining what was a great orchestra eeeeerrrrrrrrr oooops

UKIP policies would kill off many of our small food producers ......... Arbroath Smokies , Yorkshire FOrced Rhubarb etc etc

It's like shooting fish in a barrel, destroying GongGong's "points", which is why I often don't bother.

His incredible idea, on another thread, about whether somebody dressed up as the pope would automatically be assumed to be the pope, is a case in point. He seems to think that by finding some way-out, extreme example that gives a vaguely alternative possible conclusion, the whole opposing argument is countered.

Just what has "multiculturalism" as a mass-movement, political ideology got to do with a couple of dozen people with similar interests from different cultures working together? Answer: zilch!

And as to how he thinks that the removal of a few layers of waste and bureacracy, along with some very damaging trade restrictions, would prevent people from growing rhubarb and smoking fish, heaven only knows! They were doing it before the EU was even thought of, and I'm sure they'll be doing it when it's long forgotten!