Political freedom and Rotherham

[Bax-of-Delights]

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...

:

And, in broad agreement with Simon's posting, let me add another nuance to this farrago ( ).
Rotherham Council, if I am not mistaken (I just checked it on-line to make quite sure) was the governing body that ignored warnings about Pakistani sex gangs operating within its jurisdiction. It was supposed - and has been argued - that fear of being called racists was a significant determiner in the "sidelining" of this criminal activity.
Now we have a by-election this coming week and, some might argue, that there may well be a significant move against the Labour majority here. What better than to "out" a UKIP "member" with the underlying message that supporters of UKIP are fundamentally "racists"? With the Liberals all but marginalised and the Tories on a hiding to nothing in this Yorkshire seat where does the main opposition come from?

Just a little Machiavellian thought to digest...

[Simon]

It's an interesting thought, Bax, but I really don't believe that the Rotherham lefties are intelligent enough to manage anything like that!

[MrGongGong]

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!

the following 3 lines have ben replaced to help those with a sensitive disposition

Rinnzekete bee bee nnz krr müü?
ziiuu ennze, ziiuu rinnzkrrmüü, 3
rakete bee bee,

SO to spell it out (as told to me by the people concerned !)
Without protected status the Abroath smokie and Yorkshire forced rhubarb (along with many others) would cease to exist on purely economic grounds
some things once lost can never be recovered
YOU might not care but many of us do

Far from you "destroying" my points you simply are showing your small minded nature

the "multiculturalism has failed" mantra is, in my experience of working in many of the so called "multicultural" areas of the UK a myth, sure there are problems in some places ........... but there is a lot of "received wisdom" about this

Carry on living in your fantasy 1950's world if you like but don't try and inflict it on the rest of the UK

[Bryn]

Late to the table as ever. The possibility of a link to the forthcoming election was raised as early as message #4, though I readily admit I was wondering whether the kippers had 'leaked' the story, rather than their opponents.

[Simon]

SO to spell it out (as told to me by the people concerned !)
Without protected status the Abroath smokie and Yorkshire forced rhubarb (along with many others) would cease to exist on purely economic grounds

This is simply untrue, old chap. Not a lot more I can say, really.

some things once lost can never be recovered

No problem agreeing with that.

YOU might not care but many of us do

I believe you. As a traditionalist, I too care deeply about the retention of the good things about Britain. Smokies and Yorkshire rhubarb are well worth keeping, along with many other things that we seem to do so well. I'm all for local things, in every country: such diversity is one of the things that makes our world such a fascinating place.

[Simon]

Late to the table as ever. The possibility of a link to the forthcoming election was raised as early as message #4 ...

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>

[MrGongGong]

This is simply untrue, old chap. Not a lot more I can say, really.

Sadly you are wrong on this
or maybe the people who actually make the stuff don't know as much about their business as you do ?
I guess you will probably be able to tell them that as well

OR

Tell me HOW you know this ?

Because I know it to be true through talking with those concerned NOT making it up in the pub with my smoked herring mates


Ironically (and France is a good example) one of the few things that WILL preserve regional identity and diversity is the EU , without it we will simply be in the thrall of big corporations. French cheese is a prime example

Now this is rather OT for the subject
BUT to think that the Kipper folk are somehow "rational" is rather deluded ........

[Tony Halstead]

Re #36

<doh>

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

[ahinton]

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!

No. Answer: the problem is enshrined in the view of it as yet another "ism", as a "mass-movement" anything at all and as a "political ideology", not in the principle of multicultural development itself. Might you seek - or like - to imply that, when Britain (not to mention other European nations, principally France, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal) careered all over the world colonising, it (and they) had no cause neither to absorb any of the cultures of the nations in which they thereby involved themselves nor to anticipate that the colonised might want, expect and ultimately be able and entitled to move to the colonising country and, obviously, bring their cultural history and backgrounds with them? If multicultural acceptance is so anathematic to you, should you not regard the entire business of colonialism likewise? Or do you perhaps believe that what colonisers learned and should have learned about other nations' cultures, religious persuasions, history et al as a consequence of their colonising should have been either abandoned in the countries so colonised or brought back to the colonising countries without any of the colonised people? - and, if you believe either, what do you suppose might have been the purpose of the colonising exercises?

Were UKIP ever to attain a sustainable overall majority in a general election (as great a likelihood as next Easter occurring before next Christmas) and its power was such as to enable it to negotiate Britain's total withdrawal from EU / EEA / all other established European nation groupings (take your pick), how on earth do you suppose that Britain could evade massive economic damage as a direct result? Do you really believe Britain to be capable of self-sufficiency financially, agriculturally, industrially and in all other ways even when its import / export facilities would be so gravely compromised as a direct consequence of the widespread animosity towards it that would be one of the more devastating outcomes of such a withdrawal? The small independent food producers that Mr GongGong mentions would indeed find themselves gravely at risk, since for one thing they depend increasingly on the ability to export and, for another, less and less British people would be able to afford their produce as a consequence of the even greater worsening of Britain's economy that would result from the reactions of many other countries on which Britain depends for its import / export markets. Since no such isolationist position has a hope of establishing itself, however, we needn't worry our heads about it, fortunately, but the dangers of persuading British voters that the country could indeed manage on its own (as UKIP doesn't actually claim but into which parlous circumstance it would nevertheless lead Britain were it to ensure that country's severance from the rest of Europe) as more than enough to raise fundamental questions as to the "rationality" that you seek to claim for the party's principal policies.

That said, little of this has a relevant and direct bearing upon the Rotherham news, of course, so it's probably best if you simply leave it at your broad agreement with most of us that people have made the most appalling and embarrassing cock-up at Social Services there and have done therewith.

[Simon]

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.

As regards being in the thrall of the big corporations, oh dear, Mr GG - we already are! If only you knew the power of the top 50 companies!

It's economics, not the EU, that decides what succeeds/fails, though it's true that they tinker at the edges with so-called protected name status.

[Simon]

... when its import / export facilities would be so gravely compromised as a direct consequence of the widespread animosity towards it that would be one of the more devastating outcomes of such a withdrawal?

Leaving your other points, if I may, AH, this is the Big Lie that all the pro-EUers have fallen for.

I think that we Eurosceptics have to nail this, which we will do in time, as it's an easy argument to win - and then the withdrawal, which apparently has a majority backing in the country, (although of course the politicians who make money from trhe EU want their gravy train to continue), will follow naturally. Once we've gone, others will follow, then the whole sorry mess can be dismantled and the wasted billions be put to good use in services, care and education.

[ahinton]

This is simply untrue, old chap. Not a lot more I can say, really.

Can or will?

As a traditionalist

What's that when it is - or indeed is not - at home?

I too care deeply about the retention of the good things about Britain. Smokies and Yorkshire rhubarb are well worth keeping, along with many other things that we seem to do so well. I'm all for local things, in every country: such diversity is one of the things that makes our world such a fascinating place.

Indeed - so why would you not be concerned about such foods' likely demise when far fewer other countries will import them and when the economic ravages of UKIP isolationist policy (should it ever take hold) have made large proportions of Britain's populace even poorer than they are now so that they can't afford to purchase them? I agree wholeheartedly with you about local foodstuffs and diversity, but part of that very diversity is being able to grow and rear things that British people might not have done previously, encouraged by their travels elsewhere. Immigrants to Britain will have a poor time of it if they can buy less locally grown British food, just as would Brits visiting other countries that took UKIP-like isolationist steps. How many Arbroath smokies are purchased and consumed on the east side of central Scotland and how much Yorkshire forced rhubarb's sold and eaten in Yorkshire? All-year-round Herefordshire asparagus grown with the use of polytunnels wouldn't count for much if its only market was Herefordshire!

[ahinton]

Leaving your other points, if I may, AH, this is the Big Lie that all the pro-EUers have fallen for.

I think that we Eurosceptics have to nail this, which we will do in time, as it's an easy argument to win - and then the withdrawal, which apparently has a majority backing in the country, (although of course the politicians who make money from trhe EU want their gravy train to continue), will follow naturally. Once we've gone, others will follow, then the whole sorry mess can be dismantled and the wasted billions be put to good use in services, care and education.

How? Where's the money coming from? And please refrain from using "we" in a response to a post by me as though you mean "you and I", even if that was not what you meant!

[ahinton]

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.

As regards being in the thrall of the big corporations, oh dear, Mr GG - we already are! If only you knew the power of the top 50 companies!

It's economics, not the EU, that decides what succeeds/fails, though it's true that they tinker at the edges with so-called protected name status.

You're right about us all being in thrall to the big corporations, of course, though why a UKIP government would be expected to make any difference to that escapes me. However, if EU and EEA do fail (and it would not be down to little UKIP), the economic consequences for Europe as a whole would indeed be devastating and long-lasting; how do you suppose that so massive an edifice could be demolished entirely and forever without the kind of fallout against the consequences of which our already massively over-borrowed nations (which ones aren't?) would have no possible prospect of any kind of bulwark?

[MrGongGong]

It's economics, not the EU, that decides what succeeds/fails, though it's true that they tinker at the edges with so-called protected name status.

aaah so YOU did make it up
the simple economics for protected foods is that without the "tinkering" they would not be able to have a USP hence no market
as I said you might think that that is OK , personally I would like to be able to eat different things in different places

same goes for diversity in the arts
without subsidy ........ NO orchestral music, no ROH , no Proms etc etc etc

I'm sure you would be fine with that as well

As to the Kipper fantasy
this one for example

UKIP accepts that the world’s climate changes, but we are the first party to take a sceptical stance on man-made global warming claims.

hummmmmm so that's ignoring the science then

or this

The UK Independence Party's position on this issue may be stated simply: while UKIP fully supports the concept of civil partnerships, it opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage

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

I also relish a war with Iceland

Reassert our territorial rights, reclaim our fishing grounds, restore our fishing fleet and support our fishing industry for future generations

So that's Icelandic coastal waters then

and this

Replace current teacher training with more on-the-job training,

Is what the current lot are doing to save money and disenfranchise skilled teachers......

and

I can't find anything at all about Culture ?

But all a bit OT
really