I just can't believe it.
Did I hear this correctly?
Rotherham Council Social Workers have removed 3 (black) kids from foster parents because they are members of UKIP (having previously been members of the Labour Party) later telling the parents that they can foster again, but only white kids :shock::shock::shock:
This surely is illegal.
It's surely the closest you can get to apartheid, and in a Labour controlled Council to boot!
Heads must roll.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Rotherham - Heads MUST Roll
Quote by flower411
It`s bloody ridiculous !! But I`m struggling to find the article that suggests these children are black or that the foster parents were told they would be allowed to foster white children.
Sky News including piece to camera by Nigel Farage after discussion with Rotherham Council.
If true then it is criminal, perhaps not legally though possibly legally speaking too, and is an example of racism, I would like to think that the issues involving all foster children are
Are they being cared for
Are they being brought up correctly
Are they being fed properly (not underfed not overfed)
Are they being given freedom to develop as individuals
basically too many aspects to list but any caring parent will understand what I mean, what colour they are, what colour the parents are and even parents sexual orientation is merely a factor to be considered but not necessarily a reason why they shouldn't foster/be fostered.
And to elaborate on that, if the children are happy with the colour or sexual orientation of their foster parents then that is all that matters but if it makes a child feel uncomfortable then the childs feelings has to be taken into consideration.
I would like to see the matter investigated properly by people who understand the real priorities when it comes to fostering and being fostered.
Are they being cared for
Are they being brought up correctly
Are they being fed properly (not underfed not overfed)
Are they being given freedom to develop as individuals
basically too many aspects to list but any caring parent will understand what I mean, what colour they are, what colour the parents are and even parents sexual orientation is merely a factor to be considered but not necessarily a reason why they shouldn't foster/be fostered.
And to elaborate on that, if the children are happy with the colour or sexual orientation of their foster parents then that is all that matters but if it makes a child feel uncomfortable then the childs feelings has to be taken into consideration.
I would like to see the matter investigated properly by people who understand the real priorities when it comes to fostering and being fostered.
Quote by MidsCouple24
I would like to see the matter investigated properly by people who understand the real priorities when it comes to fostering and being fostered.
Wise words. I would like to know what's happened, how and why before I express an opinion. I suspect the results of any enquiry will be the subject of much less outrage.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I would like to see the matter investigated properly by people who understand the real priorities when it comes to fostering and being fostered.
Wise words. I would like to know what's happened, how and why before I express an opinion. I suspect the results of any enquiry will be the subject of much less outrage.
Don't bank on it.
There's a by election due in Rotherham and the political stakes are high.
It doesn't change the facts Ben.
I'm not sure they can back-pedal so easily based on that outrageous public admission. The damage has already been done and the decision stinks. The by election will only help keep it in the public eye, which in this case, is no bad thing.
Quote by IOL NEWS
Rotherham council's director of children's services, Joyce Thacker, told BBC radio the three ethnic minority children had been placed with the couple as an emergency and it was never meant to be a long-term arrangement.
“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,” she said.
Thacker added: “These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children.”
I'm not sure they can back-pedal so easily based on that outrageous public admission. The damage has already been done and the decision stinks. The by election will only help keep it in the public eye, which in this case, is no bad thing.
Sex God
You have to wonder what is the acceptable political outlook that the fostering organisations will accept from potential carers.
But waht about when that changes (according to whatever political party is in power at the time) are children going to be dragged from their homes every time there is an election?
But waht about when that changes (according to whatever political party is in power at the time) are children going to be dragged from their homes every time there is an election?
Quote by foxylady2209
You have to wonder what is the acceptable political outlook that the fostering organisations will accept from potential carers.
But waht about when that changes (according to whatever political party is in power at the time) are children going to be dragged from their homes every time there is an election?
Heaven forbid foxy.
If this was politically motivated (which I doubt) the Labour controlled Council really shot themselves in the foot. The by election comes in the wake of a disgraced ex Labour Minister resigning his seat following his admission of expenses fiddling and the last thing the Labour leadership wants so soon before Election Day (next Thursday) is bigoted actions by its leading local supporters. Gordon Brown was the last one to show such stupidity and he lost his party the election.
Putting the welfare of the children to one side, and who knows, we may learn that the reasoning was sound, I have other concerns.
How did this matter become public knowledge? Presumably the foster parents went to the press or another agency that did. What would motivate such an action? The welfare of the children? The loss of £2000 a month in maintenance payments? Political capital?
I am mindful that the foster carers would have had the facility to raise any concerns with the council or fostering agency.
How did this matter become public knowledge? Presumably the foster parents went to the press or another agency that did. What would motivate such an action? The welfare of the children? The loss of £2000 a month in maintenance payments? Political capital?
I am mindful that the foster carers would have had the facility to raise any concerns with the council or fostering agency.
Sex God
the mind boggles to how some get a reply in this forum
shakes head in dis belief
shakes head in dis belief
Sex God
I'm amazed that the lure of £2000 a month is enough to ruin and put ones life on hold for the sake of someone Else's offspring really G
no in fact I'm amazed its been suggested :giveup:
no in fact I'm amazed its been suggested :giveup:
Quote by Lizaleanrob
I'm amazed that the lure of £2000 a month is enough to ruin and put ones life on hold for the sake of someone Else's offspring really G
no in fact I'm amazed its been suggested :giveup:
Nothing surprises me on that score rob.
Do people really foster just for the money? Surely not.
If someone actually believes that, well, words fail me too. They must have very little faith in their fellow man to believe that, or very little perhaps even poor life experience of true human nature.
Sexpert
Rotherham Social Services do seem to be getting a bit of bad coverage for sensitivity to the best interests of their ethnic minorities. It would seem that this isn't the first case where the anti multicultural press have given them a going over.
Even if they called it right and being a member of the UKIP is a factor in this arrangement, they are openly admitting that they didn't know the foster parents were members of the party when they placed the children in their care, makes me wonder what else they don't know about families they are fostering children too ? if it is a serious factor then they should have made sure they know before the children were handed over.
Sexpert
Quote by MidsCouple24
Even if they called it right and being a member of the UKIP is a factor in this arrangement, they are openly admitting that they didn't know the foster parents were members of the party when they placed the children in their care, makes me wonder what else they don't know about families they are fostering children too ? if it is a serious factor then they should have made sure they know before the children were handed over.
I think it is just down to sensationalist anti multicultural reporting by the press. If you read the URL above it would seem that -
In one case, a white girl who was sexually abused by an Asian gang from the age of 12 was offered lessons in Urdu and Punjabi by her local council after her ordeal, to "try to engage her in education".
Reading this I'm inclined to think the Rotherham SS shouldn't be in charge of a sweet shop, never mind the care of vulnerable children. It looks like these folks are getting an undeserved kicking from the press, surely they can't be this incompetent?
This is what the left Labour controlled councils have been allowed to produce.
This is the kind of craziness that Tony Bliar was allowed to produce. Councils that banned perfectly good foster parents from fostering because they did not fit in with the Labour controlled social experiment.
Parents denied the right to adopt for being ' too fat ' or ' too old ' or ' they smoke ' and now because of the wrong ethnicity, all about being born in the wrong country etc.
No wonder it takes on average three years to adopt a child and why so many find themselves in the care system. Is this what we want? A kind of two tier system that the council and Social workers control, that leave children alone in a system that they grow up believing cares not about them, but only about the political correctness that Labour cruelly created?
No wonder there are so many damaged kids when they leave the care system.
'Does Rotherham’s child services really think that nobody who questions the exceptionally questionable doctrine of multiculturalism should be allowed to foster?
Perhaps that is the plan; indoctrinate the children young, bring them up in Left-leaning households on a diet of statist ideology so they never question the system that controls their futures.'
Seems the truth is there to see, as the children have been removed. This isd the kind of things that the ' racist shouters ' love to see happen.
Quote by starlightcouple
This is what the left Labour controlled councils have been allowed to produce.
This is the kind of craziness that Tony Bliar was allowed to produce. Councils that banned perfectly good foster parents from fostering because they did not fit in with the Labour controlled social experiment.
Parents denied the right to adopt for being ' too fat ' or ' too old ' or ' they smoke ' and now because of the wrong ethnicity, all about being born in the wrong country etc.
No wonder it takes on average three years to adopt a child and why so many find themselves in the care system. Is this what we want? A kind of two tier system that the council and Social workers control, that leave children alone in a system that they grow up believing cares not about them, but only about the political correctness that Labour cruelly created?
No wonder there are so many damaged kids when they leave the care system.
I find this one difficult to understand or make a ruling on in my mind, I do think some of those factors are relevant but only sometimes not as a "written in stone" ruling, I would like to see those making the decision looking at each situation individually, an obese family might not be the best people to adopt one child whilst perfectly able to adopt another, let's say the adoptee was a up and coming gymnast, as an individual case I would like them to take into consideration if the family are mobile enough to get the child to the venues he/she needs to visit, are they willing to encourage his/her passion for the sport, will they hinder the training schedule with their own lifestyle ? Would a white family understand the illnesses some black children can be prone too that white children are not, would they be willing to help a child explore their roots or religion if the child wanted to ? would a Christian black family support a jewish child with his religious beliefs ? would an older couple be able to cope with a "wild child" would a family living in a predominantely black or white area understand the difficulties a black or white child might experience if they were the "only black or white person" at the school or in the village, what about the foster parents sexual orientation would the child be comfortable with a lesbian or gay couple, what if the foster child is gay or lesbian, would the foster parents be able to cope with the situation or try to "cure/convert" them, because some people do think it is a condition that can be "cured".
I think at the end of the day it is such a difficult thing to assess, every case is different and more resources need to be put into the pot to ensure that those responsible for matching foster parents with foster children need the backing, support, manpower (sorry person power) and training that is second to none for a job that is as difficult as brain surgery.
Mids we have a situation happening now where it would seem children were taken away from a loving and caring environment, simply on the basis of the foster parents political preferences. A family that met all the criteria laid out by the local council for many years, but it now seems that belonging to UKIP is enough of a political reason, to snatch the children from that loving home.
If a Council and the Social workers it employs, have the power to make such dreadful decisions, then surely we must question those people's own motives? We know what councils are like nowadays having seen many times to be of the kind of political persuasions themselves. Funny though how this madness nearly always seems to come from Labour controlled councils.
If a Council and the Social workers it employs, have the power to make such dreadful decisions, then surely we must question those people's own motives? We know what councils are like nowadays having seen many times to be of the kind of political persuasions themselves. Funny though how this madness nearly always seems to come from Labour controlled councils.
And I agreed with you that the situation is desperate, that we need to sort it out and very quickly with people trained to look at each situation individually, having the resouces, facilities and finances to deal with every single case as an individual case, I have no doubt that sometimes a foster parents political views would be a relevent reason for not letting them foster a specific child, but not always, for example, taking a protestant child in Northern Ireland and allowing a staunchly Catholic family to foster them could be a big mistake and be detrimental to the childs well being and even safety in the area that he/she would be expected to live.
Every factor has to be taken into accound and that can only be done with the above mentioed facilities available.
You cannot say that political views are not important in every case but you can decide if they are or not in an individual case, from what I have read, in this instance it does not seem important that the family are members of the UKIP but that will not always be the situation is all I am saying.
Every factor has to be taken into accound and that can only be done with the above mentioed facilities available.
You cannot say that political views are not important in every case but you can decide if they are or not in an individual case, from what I have read, in this instance it does not seem important that the family are members of the UKIP but that will not always be the situation is all I am saying.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
'Does Rotherham’s child services really think that nobody who questions the exceptionally questionable doctrine of multiculturalism should be allowed to foster?
Should "nobody" really be "anybody"?
What do you mean by this? "exceptionally questionable doctrine of multiculturalism"
Have you looked around recently Star? Britain is multicultural and is a far better place because of it - not sure what is questionable at all? Nature intended us to to be multi cultural to keep the gene pool strong.
Quote by Too Hot
'Does Rotherham’s child services really think that nobody who questions the exceptionally questionable doctrine of multiculturalism should be allowed to foster?
Should "nobody" really be "anybody"?
What do you mean by this? "exceptionally questionable doctrine of multiculturalism"
Have you looked around recently Star? Britain is multicultural and is a far better place because of it - not sure what is questionable at all? Nature intended us to to be multi cultural to keep the gene pool strong.
Have you not read any of my links? Obviously not.
Just for you Too Hot.
