Rotherham Borough Council and foster care.

[Sid Squid]

Rotherham will remove foster children from your care if they don't like your politics.

BBC news story. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120)

Democracy? Not if you have an opinion other than that held as correct by Rotherham Council it seems.

Joyce Thacker, you are a disgrace.

[Bibio]

that's disgusting.

that's like saying i have catholic views just because my kid goes to a catholic school and because of this i'm racist towards Jews or Muslims.

that silly cow needs to be sacked as she clearly is not fit to do her job due to letting past mistakes blind her view.

[punyXpress]

What do you expect from the heartland of King Arthur's Peoples Republic?
Sorry: King & Republic in the same sentence - I smell an oxymoron.

[Fallout]

What a fool. She obviously doesn't understand anti-multiculturalism. It has nothing to do with the colour of your skin or where you come from. It's how you treat other people and how you integrate. If they raise these kids as their own they'll be brought up with a traditional British culture whether the parents support UKIP, Labour or the Raving Loony Party. Their politics is completely irrelevant as UKIP is not racist.

[Biker Biggles]

I cant see this being the official policy of any of the mainstream partys,more a case of some local jumped up zealot in the social services department.What a gift horse for the other contenders in the coming by election though.Now me being a paranoid conspiracy theorist-----no I wont go there,honest

[Sid Squid]

Political? Yes, of course it's political - the politics of the foster carers differing from those who hold sway in the council's relevant departments is the only reason for the removal of the children. There is no problem with the quality of care given and no suggestion that it's ever been of concern.

Bad politics is the motivation, but the action is abuse of position by predictable ideologues.

And that shouldn't be glossed over when the mess it put right. If the responsible person/s are ever capable of such decisions, then they've very ably demonstrated that they are not suitable to hold that or any related position.

[Spank86]

Maybe they should check if any council employees are Tories and kick them out into the private sector.

[Bibio]

i think the biggest problem of this is the local community curtain twitchers and gobsh!tes turning it into a witch hunt now thay have been branded as different and raciest as they were clearly guilty due to the children being taken off them add to this the chinese whispers and it could make the couples life a misery.

how to ruin someone's life in the matter of hours.

[flymo]

Would the story be viewed any different had it been BNP members, wanting to foster a non-indigenous UK child, or a member of the Nazi party I wonder?

[Spank86]

The thought occurs that BNP members wouldn't want to foster a non indigenous child.

And also that the BNP and UKIP are worlds apart.

[flymo]

The thought occurs that BNP members wouldn't want to foster a non indigenous child.

And also that the BNP and UKIP are worlds apart.

But if they did. I agree with you, but playing devils advocate, technically it would be the same scenario.

[Specialone]

But if they did. I agree with you, but playing devils advocate, technically it would be the same scenario.

I think the term major political party was used, the bnp arent one of these afaik.

[Spank86]

I don't see how it would be the same scenario?

The core of the BNPs belief is foreigners out. It's pretty much impossible to be a member without believing it.

It is perfectly possible to be a member of UKIP without believing we need to deport all foreigners, you can simply believe they are the only party who will take us out of Europe OR you can believe that the current policy of multiculturalism is detrimental to our society without being racist or against other cultures.

[flymo]

so are we saying that the decision would have been sound for one political party, but not for another?

[Spank86]

You might choose to term it like that.

The problem isn't that they had the kids removed because they belonged to a political party, depending on the party that might be fine, the problem is that it was such an overreaction to a party like UKIP.

You wouldn't leave two Jewish children to be fostered by Rudolph Hess would you.

[Biker Biggles]

You might choose to term it like that.

The problem isn't that they had the kids removed because they belonged to a political party, depending on the party that might be fine, the problem is that it was such an overreaction to a party like UKIP.

You wouldn't leave two Jewish children to be fostered by Rudolph Hess would you.

No He is dead and would thus make a poor foster parent.:D

[Spank86]

Aribert Heim?

[-Ralph-]

Do UKIP have a problem with foreigners? I didn't think they did.

I thought they had a problem with European Bureaucracy and an unelected European Commission dreaming up laws we don't need to solve problems we don't have (such as the Euro Driving License directive and the ABS/Anti-Tamper laws that just went through (only 16 voted against this and they were all UKIP MEP's or supporters)). I'd probably stand firmly alongside them on that.

I also thought they had a problem with our immigration policies, from a perspective of the burden on our welfare system and the NHS funded by the British taxpayer, not from a perspective that they just don't like johnny foreigner. I'd probably stand firmly alongside them on that too.

Majority of white British people probably do to be honest. The results of a referendum on Europe if we get it in 2014 will be very telling.

Two political stances I'd love to see taken amongst the 2/3 parties who actually have the ability to run the country as well.

I was very pleased with David Cameron's stance on financial contribution last week, and thank god we never joined the Euro.

These pro-federalist MEP's who want see a United States of Europe are just bloody elitist, and their attitudes are quite frankly scary, dangerous and Hilter-esqe.

I've never spent any time looking into UKIP - are there more sinister aims to UKIP that I'm not aware of?

[Sid Squid]

Would the story be viewed any different had it been BNP members, wanting to foster a non-indigenous UK child, or a member of the Nazi party I wonder?
That's an excellent extrapolation of the question, and it'd be hard to see that anybody reasonable would say 'no problem' to that. Obviously the difference is only by degree, (which is not to say that UKIP are only by degree less racist than the BNP - UKIP clearly aren't a racist organisation at all), but the difference there is not that any given politics are or are not OK, but that if they vary from those which an arbitrary authority deems acceptable.

The basic question still is political, albeit not of political orientation but a matter of democratic right. In this vile circumstance an unfortunately typical stance on democracy has been taken - in that Rotherham Borough Council feel that democratic rights and freedoms should be extended only to those who align substantially with a set of views decided by them, and that holding other political views is sufficient reason for that council to compromise your democratic rights.

Which gives us a deeper question, do we or do we not feel that democracy and freedom of speech are the right thing? I'd say yes, and that the price of that freedom is that you will inevitably hear things you don't like, but that no-one should be disenfranchised for their political views, even the silly and extreme.

Rotherham have screwed up royally.

[Spank86]

If it were possible to be a non racist member of the BNP (someone correct me if it is) then I'd say it would be wrong to remove the kids purely on the basis of membership. However it would be right to investigate further based on membership.

As UKIP no doubt has racist members (because they would gravitate to policies such as out of Europe not necessarily because it courts them) I would agree that the council should have looked into it upon finding out that they were members. Where the problem arises is in the assumption of racism based on membership when it apparently isn't the case.

@ Sid: I don't believe in the preeminence of democracy, if 51% of the country voted to brutally sodomise me every Wednesday I wouldn't go along with it just because it was democratically decided... I'd push for a different day, Wednesday is motorbike day.

[-Ralph-]

The conservative party has racist members. Racism is rife amongst the over 60's in this country, of any political alignment.

[Spank86]

Exactly.

Although as they're over 60 it's probably easier to wait for them to die than bother with it.

Too old to train.

[Biker Biggles]

The conservative party has racist members. Racism is rife amongst the over 60's in this country, of any political alignment.

Dare I say ageism is clearly rife among the younger elements of org contributors?Or would that be a sweeping generalisation based on my preconcieved views about who post on here?;)

[Spank86]

Dare I say ageism is clearly rife among the younger elements of org contributors?Or would that be a sweeping generalisation based on my preconcieved views about who post on here?;)

Could be either.

I refer you to my post above.

[-Ralph-]

Dare I say ageism is clearly rife among the younger elements of org contributors?Or would that be a sweeping generalisation based on my preconcieved views about who post on here?;)

I'd say I'm probably in the top 10-15% of contributors to this forum age wise, and I'm not 40 yet, but this is a very young forum.

It's a sweeping generalisation based upon members of my (fairly large) family and family friends of that generation.

I don't come from a particularly racist family as a rule, there are no people in their 50's, my sister at 40 is the oldest of my generation, and there are none in my generation or the next generation below that, that hold racist views.

My parents generation, aunts, uncles, and family friends however are now all over 60, none are particularly open minded about race (except perhaps one Uncle, now dead, who spent his working life in the Middle East), some are just overtly racist and make no apologies for it. Being children of the 50's and 60's, it's just the era they were educated in.

I clearly remember as a young child my mother discouraging me from drinking out of a can, by saying "Paki's touched that can at the factory, pour it into a glass". Terrible parenting, to be quite honest, but that's by today's standards, and in those days that's what happened.

[widepants]

do any of you oldens remember that old ryhme that was used to sort out teams in the play ground.It goes "eny meany miny mo.......................................... Looking back at it it seems terrible.In them days people thought nothing of it.

[Sid Squid]

if 51% of the country voted to brutally sodomise me every Wednesday I wouldn't go along with it just because it was democratically decided... I'd push for a different day, Wednesday is motorbike day.
Fair enough, how about Tuesdays?

@ Sid: I don't believe in the pre-eminence of democracy
As has been said many times by people much better placed to say than I; democracy has it's drawbacks, but on balance it's the least bad system.

I can't help but agree.

If it were possible to be a non racist member of the BNP (someone correct me if it is)
I can't see how. Although I suspect some of their support comes from people who aren't necessarily racist as such, but who do not feel catered for by other parties - just because the BNP are a bunch of knob ends it would be wrong to assume that they're wrong about everything.

then I'd sy it would be wrong to remove the kids purely on the basis of membership. However it would be right to investigate further based on membership.
Would it? That wouldn't really accommodate our vaguely desired thoughts of universal free speech and universal enfranchisement.

[Spank86]

Sure, after all their membership indicates a possibility of racist leanings. It is therefore in the kids best interests to check if this is the case.

If its not then that's fine but I don't see how it hurts to check. As for universal free speech, that is by necessity curtailed in all society. It's one thing to bring up YOUR kids as racists, it's quite another to bring up someone else's.

My point about democracy wasn't that its and or good but that's it's trumped by my own personal morality and I dare say everyone else feels the same. Luckily our morality is mostly formed by the same society that formed our democracy.

I'd prefer Thursdays, bike seats not THAT comfy.

[-Ralph-]

do any of you oldens remember that old ryhme that was used to sort out teams in the play ground.It goes "eny meany miny mo.......................................... Looking back at it it seems terrible.In them days people thought nothing of it.

I do know what you mean, but we did used to get told off for it at school, and told the lyrics were 'catch a knicker by the toe' instead (created images of knickers flying through the air at you, and sticking out a toe to catch them). But then I was at Sharmans Cross Primary school in Solihull which was a predominantly white area at the time, but very close to predominantly Asian areas. We had an exchange programme with Ladypool Primary in Sparkbrook where I had a penpal, which was basically an exercise in multiculturalism, the schools visited each other on field trips, and taught everything from religion to food. So changing the lyrics was probably part of a wider multi-cultural agenda for the school.

[Spank86]

I learnt it as catch a tigger.

[Sid Squid]

Sure, after all their membership indicates a possibility of racist leanings. It is therefore in the kids best interests to check if this is the case.
True, and in principle I'm generally in agreement, but while this decision isn't difficult to make when the question is extreme inasmuch as the views of the BNP, whilst not actually illegal, is by nature by most people considered unacceptable. The problem I see is that once we've established the process by which we consider it acceptable, necessary even, to disenfranchise one group's supporters we have acquiesced to the action now being more widely applied, in short is this the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge? I didn't complain when they came for... etc etc.

If its not then that's fine but I don't see how it hurts to check. As for universal free speech, that is by necessity curtailed in all society. It's one thing to bring up YOUR kids as racists, it's quite another to bring up someone else's.
Agreed, however unless and until membership of the BNP/CPGB/Monster raving Loony Party becomes illegal is it really in accordance with the principles of democracy and freedom to curtail universal rights? Even when we consider our various freedoms to have societal limits, as they must, where we draw the line is by nature arbitrary.

My point about democracy wasn't that its and or good but that's it's trumped by my own personal morality and I dare say everyone else feels the same. Luckily our morality is mostly formed by the same society that formed our democracy.
Also true, but only on a personal level, not when we come to arranging process by which societal rights are decided.

I'd prefer Thursdays, bike seats not THAT comfy.
Point taken, might take more than a day for your err... you know, to recover like.

[Bluefish]

The conservative party has racist members. Racism is rife amongst the over 60's in this country, of any political alignment.
Sure is, just came back from visiting the mrs in hospital, an old white lady in one bed who doesn't mind letting you know her views and a pakistani lady who came in today in another, who doesn't speak a word of english, old whitey was really laying into her, shouldn't be allowed etc :rolleyes:

[Spank86]

True, and in principle I'm generally in agreement, but while this decision isn't difficult to make when the question is extreme inasmuch as the views of the BNP, whilst not actually illegal, is by nature by most people considered unacceptable. The problem I see is that once we've established the process by which we consider it acceptable, necessary even, to disenfranchise one group's supporters we have acquiesced to the action now being more widely applied, in short is this the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge? I didn't complain when they came for... etc etc.


Agreed, however unless and until membership of the BNP/CPGB/Monster raving Loony Party becomes illegal is it really in accordance with the principles of democracy and freedom to curtail universal rights? Even when we consider our various freedoms to have societal limits, as they must, where we draw the line is by nature arbitrary.

But im not talking about "disenfranchising" them purely for being a member, im talking about looking at what we know to see if we need to look closer. We may then take action because of their beliefs NOT their membership. The membership merely acts as a reason to look closer at one specific facet of their personality.

[Bibio]

wonder what the outcome of this is. that is if there has been any.