drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I've not seen any reports that suggest they are "Activists" ... just that they were former labour voters who now vote UKIP The fact that they once voted Labour has not been reported has it? and does that really make any difference? The couple concerned were / are members of UKIP, that pretty much puts them into the category of activists don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I'm not sure it will be as short term as you might think. As I understand, there is a shortage of foster parents. If that is so there is unlikely to be a pool of people waiting to adopt 3 kids. So by my reckoning the wisest thing may have been to leave the kids where they were until a suitable home could have been found. Not to split them up. In any event they are probably not going to have a good Christmas. Just wondering why they chose this course of action, especially at this time of year. Doesn't seem to be in the kids best interest. Yup I agree there is a national shortage of foster parents. But that does not mean that the authorities should just "allocate" kids to whoever is free without going through whatever checks to ensure that it's a good fit for all concerned. As someone said earlier in the thread, placing kids with foster parents with strong religious beliefs may not be suitable if the real parents are anti-religion for example. These kids are from a group in society who are already subject to various "campaigns" against them, and the irony of media outlets like the Mail and the Torygraph getting on their high horses should not be forgotten, especially when they are both very vocal in being anti immigration As said the timing and the rhetoric, mainly pushed by UKIP, is scandalous really. They should hang their heads in shame at how they are manipulating this, but knowing what they stand for I suspect they are actually enjoying it and bugger the consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The fact that they once voted Labour has not been reported has it? and does that really make any difference? The couple concerned were / are members of UKIP, that pretty much puts them into the category of activists don't you think? the fact they used to vote labour has been reported pretty much everywhere , as I said I've not seen them called "activists " anywhere is their past voting record an issue , i've no idea , i just found it interesting in the context that more often than not UkIP have been branded to be the stomping ground of the blue rinse mail reading ex Tory voter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Yup I agree there is a national shortage of foster parents. But that does not mean that the authorities should just "allocate" kids to whoever is free without going through whatever checks to ensure that it's a good fit for all concerned. so can we assume therefore you are agreeing that voting UKIP is justifiable means to remove them , as in every other aspect they appear to have passed all criteria What is interesting is that the council removed 1 child a few days before the other 2 children ... surely if they were that concerned they would have removed all 3 at the same time ? it again points to the only concern being the voting intent , you wouldn't have removed 1 child from Fred West and left 2 behind would you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Its not really just about UKIP pushing this issue though is it. I have just had a look on the Rotherham Star website and they ran a poll. 92% thought it was ok for UKIP members to foster. Surely most of them are locals. Also just because The media are making out ukip are racist, it doesn't mean the individuals are. They may just want to vote to leave the EU. (whether that's the correct decision is a separate debate, but it is their choice). Its the same as most labour/libdem/tory voters not agreeing with everything those parties do. But I do find it hard to believe that people who have been adopting kids from different ethnic backgrounds for 7 years could be classed as racists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 the fact they used to vote labour has been reported pretty much everywhere , as I said I've not seen them called "activists " anywhere is their past voting record an issue , i've no idea , i just found it interesting in the context that more often than not UkIP have been branded to be the stomping ground of the blue rinse mail reading ex Tory voter I really fail to see your point re Labour Tony. And as for it being reported everywhere, I have not seen it mentioned anywhere and it certainly has ne relevance to what is being discussed. An "activist" is a fairly well know term for political members , me thinks you are being mischievous somewhat. Their past voting record has no relevance whatsoever toanything other than a deflection. What is interesting is the amount of "support" that Tory supporters are giving to the UKIP argument though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 so can we assume therefore you are agreeing that voting UKIP is justifiable means to remove them , as in every other aspect they appear to have passed all criteria What is interesting is that the council removed 1 child a few days before the other 2 children ... surely if they were that concerned they would have removed all 3 at the same time ? it again points to the only concern being the voting intent , you wouldn't have removed 1 child from Fred West and left 2 behind would you Tony somewhat tiresome there, where have I said that voting UKIP is justifiable means. You do not know that they have passed any test, nor do I. I have read and listened to many of the ridiculous claims that some are spouting about this being a case of them being UKIP voters, and that stopping them being foster parents, which is not the case as you and I suspect other UKIP supporters well know. Using your totally flawed way of thinking then can we assume that any political viewpoint is OK for fostering a child, and that beliefs and the environment they are placed into should have no relevance? Of course you don;t think that and it's as ludicrous as your suggestion. As with other points I suspect that you are resorting to sill tactics to get off the subject in hand here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 its not just tory support though is it. As I said earlier, 92% of locals think its ok for ukip to foster. I cant believe there are that many Tories voting in that poll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 29, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2012 so can we assume therefore you are agreeing that voting UKIP is justifiable means to remove them , as in every other aspect they appear to have passed all criteria What is interesting is that the council removed 1 child a few days before the other 2 children ... surely if they were that concerned they would have removed all 3 at the same time ? it again points to the only concern being the voting intent , you wouldn't have removed 1 child from Fred West and left 2 behind would you It is justifiable if the parents object. The parents object, council agree to move children but say as they are in no real danger they will do it asap but will mean splitting the family up temporarily as they don't have another set of foster parents capable of taking all three children and it may not be possible to move them all at once. The parents say they would still prefer this. Care plan modified accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 whatever tests they have passed seemed to be ok for the last 7 years, so whatever they have done has only come to light in the last few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 29, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2012 whatever tests they have passed seemed to be ok for the last 7 years, so whatever they have done has only come to light in the last few weeks. No one has ever said that they've "done" anything. They don't need to have. The UKIP membership shouldn't bar them from fostering, it only becomes relevant when someone objects in a particular instance, it shouldn't prevent them fostering again either. It is just that someone (most likely the parents) thought this particular couple were incompatible with these particular kids on this occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 No one has ever said that they've "done" anything. They don't need to have. The UKIP membership shouldn't bar them from fostering, it only becomes relevant when someone objects in a particular instance, it shouldn't prevent them fostering again either. It is just that someone (most likely the parents) thought this particular couple were incompatible with these particular kids on this occasion. ok that makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Its not really just about UKIP pushing this issue though is it. I have just had a look on the Rotherham Star website and they ran a poll. 92% thought it was ok for UKIP members to foster. Surely most of them are locals. Also just because The media are making out ukip are racist, it doesn't mean the individuals are. They may just want to vote to leave the EU. (whether that's the correct decision is a separate debate, but it is their choice). Its the same as most labour/libdem/tory voters not agreeing with everything those parties do. But I do find it hard to believe that people who have been adopting kids from different ethnic backgrounds for 7 years could be classed as racists Flawed question though isn't it. (Note the Rotherham Star and Sheffield Star are the same media for the record) the question is worded YOUR VOTE 26-11-2012 Thursday, 29 November 2012 Should UKIP couple be able to foster children? Yes No Should the question be something more along the lines of "is it suitable for vulnerable kids from Easter Europe to be housed with foster parents that are members of a political party that is very vocal in removing immigrants and cutting back on fellow immigrants"? - not got the same ring to it, would you not agree? It's not just the media but also political figures, organizations such as Searchlight etc that bring it to people's attention the policies of UKIP and state that they feel them to be at minimum borderline racist. The leader of the right wing Tory party even says it! The authorities surely have to be 110% OK with who they place kids with. There should be no doubt as to what environment they are being placed into and to what influences they will be exposed to especially when you weigh that against where they have come from etc. As said they made a decision that the kids were not suited for being fostered by this couple, others more than likely will be fine. Each case will surely be subject to its own scrutiny. I still maintain that UKIP especially are using the misguided outrage to their own advantage here and that shows as much about what they stand for as anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Drat, I'm certain that you're right that UKIP are making political capital out of this, but I still think the original decision was fundamentally wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I'm just wondering about this and I don't know the answer. If I were to adopt would I be able to set the criteria about the children? Now this is definitely not racist. What I mean is, if we were to be asked to look after a child who has been brought up particularly religeous for example (any denomination, doesn't matter, and the cultural background is irrelevant) and I thought that would have too much impact on our family life, would I be able to say no. Another example might be the childs Gender, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 So is it OK to say membership of some parties is not ok but membership of others is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 29, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2012 Risso, you can't actually say that if it was the parents that objected and the council have to agree the care plan with them. This wasn't a forced fostering its an emergency short term one WITH the consent of the parents. In that instance any change has to be agreed with the parents wherever possible. Ultimately it's the parents decision at this stage especially with a previous judgement about taking their cultural and ethnic needs into account. It matters not whether Joe Public or the council think the fostering couple are suitable, if the parents don't at this stage that's the over riding factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Spot on Bicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 We don't actually know what happened in this case - the details haven't been disclosed. But you wouldn't ever realise that from reading the press, and listening to the politicos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 It matters not whether Joe Public or the council think the fostering couple are suitable, if the parents don't at this stage that's the over riding factor. IF being the operative word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts