Political freedom and Rotherham

[ahinton]

They have neither right nor duty to take into account any foster family's political views, unless those views would reasonably be likely to endanger the welfare of the children. What will we have next? No conservatives allowed to adopt?

Indeed - and no SWP or other Marxist supporters likewise? Would you make an exception and decline to condone foster placements with known and declared BNP couples or would you go farther and refuse to register such couple on the list of available foster parents?

What is wrong about the affair is a) that some idiot thought UKIP was a racist party and b) that any politically-correct guideline that implied that anti-immigration views are somehow more "wrong" than pro-immigration views shouldn't have existed in the first place. They are both valid viewpoints and can be argued rationally, though clearly those on each side believe that theirs is the more rational. So not only the individual, but the whole ethos of the Council, should take the blame.

I can agree with you in part - and UKIP is clearly not, as I have already stated, a "racist" party as is BNP - but it does have strong views on immigration which might raise questions as to the extent of suitability of UKIP member foster parents getting placements of immigrant children. Anti-immigration view are indeed "wrong" to the extent that no democratic country ought to be able to refuse to accept that immigrants have a right to apply to enter the country and should not be refused other than with good reason - i.e. not on a blanket no-exceptions basis; pro-immigration views, on the other hand, do not mean that those who hold them believe immigration to be compulsory!

For the record, I have to say that, were immigration to Britain to be banned altogether and immigrants who have been in Britain for, say, less than 10 years forcibly repatriated, I would have one clear option open to me - to emigrate as soon as possible, for the prospect of living in a country with such policies and no immigrants would be unbearable. I am a Scotsman with British citizenship but that doesn't - and indeed mustn't - mean that I hold views along the lines of "Scotland for the Scots" or "Britain for the British".

[Lateralthinking1]

If Emily Benn can work effectively in the Multi Asset Client Sales Team at UBS Investment Bank, anything is possible.

You will find me embracing a wider than average range of cultures. Until this millennium, I had no strong views on immigration at all other than I thought that we should always be welcoming. However, if you were to ask me whether I thought we could accommodate an additional 5 million people by 2020 as in providing them with jobs, housing, health support, water, transport, schools and pensions, then I would be completely bonkers if I said "yes". I might have a different opinion living somewhere else.

But I've worked recently in Central London and marvelled how people do not end up in hospital as Victoria underground station is closed daily in the rush hour because of overcrowding. It is nothing less than a kettle of commuters there. And I live in the borough of Lunar House where hundreds of Eastern European people queue daily to obtain the privilege of relying on soup kitchens. They will be the majority of those who spend this winter in the snow homeless on our streets. One of four A and E departments in South London will be closing soon. The three remaining ones will each have to support about one million people - and that's impossible.

I do not believe in a 5 year freeze on immigration, as UKIP does, but I do believe in future constraint. That is the position of both the Conservative and Labour parties. Like them, I almost certainly come from a very different viewpoint than that of the average UKIP member. But I do not consider the UKIP stance to be anti-immigrant. Being anti-immigrant is frequently a very different thing from being cautious or wary about high immigration. One is mainly about people and the other is principally politics. There is a strong argument that those who are recent immigrants would be among the main people to benefit from restricted immigration.

As for "goofing", that would be down to the lawyers who provided the advice if it is down to anyone. Their salary levels suggest to me that it shouldn't become a habit. And senior managers do not earn their salaries by not questioning what they are told.

[french frank]

I thought you might.

But your charity and readiness to excuse, borne in this instance of an antipathy to UKIP and your extremely pro-EU beliefs, is, unusually for you, warping your judgement.

This isn't a matter of judgement: it's a matter of fact. If the Rotherham Social Services had guidelines, based on legal advice, and those guidelines were ignored, someone made a mistake. And if there were no guidelines, based on legal advice, someone still made a mistake. Either membership of UKIP was a bar to fostering immigrant children, or it was not.

My judgement didn't stretch to expressing a view on whether I thought those guidelines were 'right' or 'fair'. Far from being ready to excuse, you'll see if you read further back that I suggested there might even have been a sacking offence involved somewhere. Quite where, it's not for me to say.

[MrGongGong]

What will we have next? No conservatives allowed to adopt?

That's the most sensible suggestion you have made for a very long time

I think there is something useful here over the usual nonsense about PC gorne mad , Baa Baa Green sheep etc etc

and UKIP is clearly not, as I have already stated, a "racist" party as is BNP - but it does have strong views on immigration which might raise questions as to the extent of suitability of UKIP member foster parents getting placements of immigrant children.

That DOES seem like something one would take account of , taking in all particular circumstances

I wonder how easy it is for Pagans to become foster parents ?

What this whole thing does reveal is the paranoia and persecution complex that many of the kipper folk have, like their "leader" who seems to love to be hated and to be a rude loudmouth insulting whoever disagrees with him. Rather like the Mormons who get points for every door slammed in their face ..........

and like most "conspiracies" it's more a case of "cock up" than the secret world government plotting to overthrow us

though this whole thing is no more "undemocratic" than our current electoral system , bishops in the house of Lords or the royal family so to somehow pull that one out as a final shot is a bit daft (though a classic tactic for those wanting us to "leave" the EU who always complain about the lack of "democracy" while wearing a "I love the queen" T shirt ......... bizarre indeed)

[Mr Pee]

a rude loudmouth insulting whoever disagrees with him

Takes one to know one, Mr.GG...

[Simon]

This isn't a matter of judgement: it's a matter of fact. If the Rotherham Social Services had guidelines, based on legal advice, and those guidelines were ignored, someone made a mistake. And if there were no guidelines, based on legal advice, someone still made a mistake. Either membership of UKIP was a bar to fostering immigrant children, or it was not.

My judgement didn't stretch to expressing a view on whether I thought those guidelines were 'right' or 'fair'.

OK. That's fair and logical enough.

But IMO your post engendered the idea that what we were considering was merely "error" as opposed to entrenched political correctness, which latter is what I believe to be the fundamental problem - and which I think (hope) will be exposed as exactly that in days to come!

And now, who was it who emailed you, but was afraid to do so in open forum? I don't ask you to betray a confidence and never would - but can't you ask his permission to let us know?

[french frank]

And now, who was it who emailed you, but was afraid to do so in open forum? I don't ask you to betray a confidence and never would - but can't you ask his permission to let us know?

Public innuendo based on ignorance is offensive.

I was having an off-board discussion with a friend who queried my meaning in one post which, I agreed, was ambiguous so I clarified it. No one was 'afraid', no one was 'horrified', no one 'didn't have the guts', as you suggested in an earlier post.

Let me clarify again: It is sensible, in my view, for people supposed to have any form of 'anti-immigration' views, whether members of UKIP, the BNP, any other political party or no party at all, not to be given preference in fostering children of immigrant origin. Membership of UKIP is not the issue: the views on immigration are. I do not regard that as 'political correctness'. The 'human error' - again, in my view, and recognising that all the facts are not yet known - was in placing the children with such a family in the first place. It was then compounded by taking them away again. On the face of it, it looks to me like an example of incompetence - but we shall see. For the moment, I don't think we're needed to sort the matter out.

[ahinton]

One aspect of this sorry affair that seems not yet to have been touched on is the timing; isn't it a case of trying to lock the stable door after the cart's been put before the horse that's bolted when the problem arises only after a foster placement has already been made and then (rightly or wrongly) found wanting? I would have thought it reasonable to assume that the perceived suitability of anyone for fostering be assessed thoroughly before the fostering applicant is registered and therefore long before any placements are offered; presumably this didn't happen properly or indeed at all in this case. With adoption arrangements, potential adopters are vetted exhaustively to ascertain suitability; OK, that costs money and, since far fewer people are adopted than fostered, adapting adoption assessment standards for foster patent suitability assessments might prove horrendously expensive, but I'm not so sure that it would nevertheless be a bad idea to tighten this standard in order to try to ensure that a case such as ths one never occurs.

[ahinton]

Public innuendo based on ignorance is offensive.

I was having an off-board discussion with a friend who queried my meaning in one post which, I agreed, was ambiguous so I clarified it. No one was 'afraid', no one was 'horrified', no one 'didn't have the guts', as you suggested in an earlier post.

Let me clarify again: It is sensible, in my view, for people supposed to have any form of 'anti-immigration' views, whether members of UKIP, the BNP, any other political party or no party at all, not to be given preference in fostering children of immigrant origin. Membership of UKIP is not the issue: the views on immigration are. I do not regard that as 'political correctness'. The 'human error' - again, in my view, and recognising that all the facts are not yet known - was in placing the children with such a family in the first place. It was then compounded by taking them away again. On the face of it, it looks to me like an example of incompetence - but we shall see. For the moment, I don't think we're needed to sort the matter out.

Whilst I think that you are broadly correct in your take here, it's probably fair to bear in mind that other unsuitable views might need to be taken into consideration besides just those about immigration policy.

[french frank]

Whilst I think that you are broadly correct in your take here, it's probably fair to bear in mind that other unsuitable views might need to be taken into consideration besides just those about immigration policy.

Yes, as regards fostering in general? What 'unsuitable views' did you have in mind?

[Resurrection Man]

....."within our social service network" must include the legal advisers to that network which does not make autonomous decisions without prior reference to legal advice, do bear this salient fact in mind.

Is this true? I have no knowledge of the matter or personal experience but if every single decision in social services has to be vetted by someone in the legal department then small wonder that they (social services) are struggling.

[Pabmusic]

Is this true? I have no knowledge of the matter or personal experience but if every single decision in social services has to be vetted by someone in the legal department then small wonder that they (social services) are struggling.

I agree. I'd be very surprised if decisions are referred routinely to legal advisers. I'd assume that guidelines are drawn up that are then referred to legal advisers, and finally issued to the field.

[Resurrection Man]

.....And I live in the borough of Lunar House where hundreds of Eastern European people queue daily to obtain the privilege of relying on soup kitchens. .....

Lat, I agree totally with your views on immigration. I do have one question regarding the above sentence, though. When I worked at Lunar House, the queues outside were from asylum seekers and those wishing to apply for immigration. Aren't Eastern Europeans part of the EU and therefore outside the remit of Lunar House ?

For the record, we are really talking about asylum seekers who present themselves at Lunar House. There are those who are genuine asylum seekers and are applying for asylum because of persecution/fear for their or their families welfare in their country of origin. These people need all the help and support they can get. Unfortunately many of them seem to do everything possible to make life difficult for the staff in IND because many asylum seekers will deliberately destroy any documentation that they may have had with them on entry into the UK. This could be simply because living where they did and being under constant fear of 'the authorities' may well have made them feel that our police are just as bad as those in the country they have fled from. But equally there are also many who are simply 'chancers'.

In addition, under the Dublin Convention, anyone seeking asylum in the EU is supposed to claim asylum in the first EU country that they arrive in. Many won't. Some will but then will try and make their way to the UK and claim asylum here. If they have applied for asylum elsewhere in the EU or previously (and often under a different name) in the UK then the fingerprinting system (both within IND and via EURODAC) will pick them out.

Benefits for asylum seekers etc are strictly controlled...and much better controlled than they used to be. For example, up until a few years ago, asylum seekers could claim their benefit from any Post Office and the system was very loosely controlled and fraud was high. Now, each asylum seeker is nominated a specific Post Office to where they go to get their benefit on presentation if their ARC (Asylum Registration Card). The ARC card is read by the Post Office systems and so only the one payment can be made and to the right person. After this new system had been implemented, the amount of benefit claimed fell by £500,000 a month. It is not hard to guess what had been going on prior to this.

[ahinton]

Yes, as regards fostering in general? What 'unsuitable views' did you have in mind?

I don't personally have any particular ones and leave it open to other members to put forward some suggestion if so they choose; I'm merely observing in the meantime that, if potential or actual foster parents' views on politics in general and immigration in particular might be deemed to qualify them as "suitable" or "unsuitable" for such a rôle, other categories might likewise need to be taken into consideration as part of an assessment process and the reason that I say so is that, in and of themselves, political affiliations and views on immigration are hardly the sole determinant of suitability or otherwise for foster-parenthood.

[ahinton]

I agree. I'd be very surprised if decisions are referred routinely to legal advisers. I'd assume that guidelines are drawn up that are then referred to legal advisers, and finally issued to the field.

I also doubt that all social services decisions are referred for legal advice prior to implementation, but this case has at least revealed that some, even though we don't know what proportion, are indeed so referred (as this one was).