Political freedom and Rotherham

[ahinton]

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?

I'm no expert on this, but not all Eastern Europeans are part of EU; how many are not will inevitably depend to some degree upon contrasting individual views of what constitutes Eastern Europe, but I think that almost everyone would agree that Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Croatia and Turkey at the very least are accepted as part of Eastern Europe.

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.

Sure but, so far, at least, the plight of asylum seekers has not yet been properly included in the present context and the views of UKIP or indeed any other organisation about asylum seekers would surely constitute a specialist sector of views on immigration as a whole.

[Resurrection Man]

I'm no expert on this, but I not all Eastern Europeans are part of EU; how many are not will inevitably depend to some degree upon contrasting individual views of what constitutes Eastern Europe, but I think that almost everyone would agree that Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Croatia and Turkey at the very least are accepted as part of Eastern Europe.


Sure but, so far, at least, the plight of asylum seekers has not yet been properly included in the present context and the views of UKIP or indeed any other organisation about asylum seekers would surely constitute a specialist sector of views on immigration as a whole.

That is why I said 'For the record'. It really didn't expect any response!

[Resurrection Man]

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).

It would appear that you are incorrect in this respect if the comments made on another website are to be believed. They comment on an interview on R4.

• I think the reference to legal advice has been misunderstood; listening to the Today programme interview my impression was that Ms Thacker was referring to legal advice received following a court case where her department was criticised by a judge. I am not sure that she was talking about the current case.
  In addition, as a LA lawyer myself I am reasonably certain that no lawyer would have told Ms Thacker that UKIP membership was a ground for removing children from a foster placement. Unless the lawyer in question was a) inexperienced; b) incompetent; c) not in full possession of all pertinent facts. Social Services (adults and children) are infamous amongst LA lawyers for withholding important information until the worst possible moment.
  
  
  
  • hexton
    In the interview that I heard, which was on the BBC website, when pressed as to whether the lawyers had advised that the children be removed from their foster parents because of their UKIP membership, Ms Thacker replied: “No, they didn’t say that at all. What they did say was I needed to seriously consider the children’s cultural and ethnic needs, and I had to weigh that into consideration about going forward.” Followed by more stuff about having previously been criticised. Like you, I was not at all sure that this prior criticism related to earlier treatment of the same children.
    
    

[ahinton]

It would appear that you are incorrect in this respect if the comments made on another website are to be believed. They comment on an interview on R4.
[LIST][*]I think the reference to legal advice has been misunderstood; listening to the Today programme interview my impression was that Ms Thacker was referring to legal advice received following a court case where her department was criticised by a judge. I am not sure that she was talking about the current case.

In addition, as a LA lawyer myself I am reasonably certain that no lawyer would have told Ms Thacker that UKIP membership was a ground for removing children from a foster placement. Unless the lawyer in question was a) inexperienced; b) incompetent; c) not in full possession of all pertinent facts. Social Services (adults and children) are infamous amongst LA lawyers for withholding important information until the worst possible moment.
[LIST][*]hexton
In the interview that I heard, which was on the BBC website, when pressed as to whether the lawyers had advised that the children be removed from their foster parents because of their UKIP membership, Ms Thacker replied: “No, they didn’t say that at all. What they did say was I needed to seriously consider the children’s cultural and ethnic needs, and I had to weigh that into consideration about going forward.” Followed by more stuff about having previously been criticised. Like you, I was not at all sure that this prior criticism related to earlier treatment of the same children.

I'm not sure that this does demonstrate that my statement was necessarily incorrect. To begin with, merely "not being sure" that Ms Thacker's remarks referred only to legal advice following a previous court case does not prove that they did so; I heard the piece myself and certainly received the impression that she claimed the decision to have been made following legal advice, though I accept that it may have seemed unclear as to whether that advice had been specific to this case or to an earlier one; however, her statement that her legal advisors urged that she "needed to seriously consider the children’s cultural and ethnic needs" and that she "had to weigh that into consideration about going forward" (leaving aside the split infinitive and the substitution of "going forward" for "in arriving at a decision on this case") does appear to imply that it was indeed these particular children about whose foster fate she had sought that legal advice, which surely suggests that legal advice on this particular case had indeed been sought.

To the list of a), b) and c) from this above quote could credibly be added "or d) the legal advice sought and provided may not have been taken either in whole or in part".

At the very least, then, it would appear still to be far from clear that social services had sought no legal advice specific to this case before deciding what to do about it.

[amateur51]

]

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?

You did just that in your msg #74

Yes, I can imagine that horrified private email, from someone who hadn't the guts to make their point openly on the forum. Who was it, by the way?

[MrGongGong]

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.

Well said , couldn't have put it better myself

[teamsaint]

Discussion boards are for discussion, is all really.
I have had some shocking abuse from a couple of posters on this board, and never resorted to insults as they did to me, but I am still prepared to discuss things with them.
Trouble is, if they have you on ignore they can't discuss things. This is self defeating.

[french frank]

The diversion is here. It's closed to further posts. The main discussion can continue on this thread.

[John Shelton]

The diversion is here. It's closed to further posts. The main discussion can continue on this thread.

By my rough calculation 90 of my 206 posts under this account name / Hey Nonymous could be described as 'political'. The 116 musical posts I wouldn't say have been uninformative or unhelpful. I'd have liked to discuss contemporary music more, but there seems little general interest.

It's a rough calculation, only. But it doesn't suggest my purpose in joining this forum was to engage in internet flaming: again, though I accept a proportion of the 90 (rough calculation) are reactively hostile in tone I would bet if you could face trawling through them few were initially so. The majority of them attempt to explore ideas which appear unacceptable to certain members of this website.

I have every sympathy for your predicament, ff. You will probably remove this post but I feel I've some right to defend myself to some extent, certainly from what IMV amounted to stalking. Anything else I say will invite some kind of derision, so I'll leave it there.

[french frank]

JS - As you have requested I shall close your account - and I'm very sorry to do so.

[Rest of message deleted on second thoughts.]

[Simon]

It's not about exploring ideas that are unacceptable, it's the way they are explored.

Of all people on this MB, Calum explores the greatest number of ideas, as far as I can see. He certainly starts a lot of political threads. Most of his views I completely disagree with, yet the subjects are always interesting, he brings a new insight into many discussions and we post against each other with no rancour at all, though sometimes we make sharp points, which are given as well as taken. Similarly with ts, usually.

Similarly with Scotty about Europe, and ff about, well, everything liberal!

Why is it possible to have a good if strong discussion with some, and not others?