Bolitics The New Condem Government

[blandy]

David Cameron - you know, the Prime Minister chap, he said

"UKIP is sort of a bunch of ... fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists, mostly"

so presumably he supports the social services decision?

[Jon]

David Cameron - you know, the Prime Minister chap, he said

so presumably he supports the social services decision?

Priceless.

[peterms]

Suggested by whom? Not the couple themselves and not by Farage and UKIP, the latter highlighting the point that the carers were "cleared" to continue fostering children as long as they were 'white British'.

You might take for example this Telegraph leader. It is representative of the tone of a lot of recent comment. It is clear that they don't know the detail of the case, like everyone else; they are commenting on what they see as a general approach, not a decision in one specific case.

...Victimising foster parents because of their support for a respectable, non-racist political party (Ukip is, after all, fielding a black candidate in the Croydon North by-election) conflicts with the norms of a free democracy. It is totalitarian in its implications. For too long the commissars of political correctness have sought to marginalise anyone who does not conform to a liberal/Left template. This sinister discrimination must be reversed.

Any lawyer who advised them that this could happen on the basis that the carers voted UKIP will likely be out of a job shortly. I simply don't believe a legally qualified individual would recommend such an arbitrary and discriminatory course of action. As for political affiliation, Guido Fawkes blog reports that she is a graduate of Common Purpose, basically a secular version of Opus Dei for left wing public sector workers. I don't think her political affiliation is in question, the issue is whether it influenced her judgement. Given the painfully stupid responses she gave while being interviewed on Radio 4 I wouldn't rule it out.

I would have thought the legal advice would be about whether, in the light of criticism made by a court that this council had failed to pay appropriate attention to cultural factors in placing children, some weight should be given to considering the suitability of placing immigrant children with a couple who are members an anti-immigration party.

Given that the couple appear to have made their complaint to the branch secretary of Ukip, I wonder whether they are quite as removed from the politics of it all as they might be.

[Risso]

I don't disagree that there's a lot of political point scoring going on Peter, but ultimately it was an entirely incorrect decision that the council made. You can be against the policy of unfettered immigration, and still be able to provide a loving home for children who need one.

[drat01]

The UKIP / Tory thing gets better and better. Now Farage full of his own self importance is claiming he would only get into a pact with the Tory party if "someone sensible like Michael Gove was in charge"

They are the UK equivalent of the Tea Party

[blandy]

I don't disagree that there's a lot of political point scoring going on Peter, but ultimately it was an entirely incorrect decision that the council made. You can be against the policy of unfettered immigration, and still be able to provide a loving home for children who need one.

100% spot on.

[bickster]

In reference to Eames comment above that this was due to the parents complaint then I'd repeat that not a shred of evidence has been presented to show that this is even the case, but there was comment from the council that they received an "anonymous tip". If the biological parents were so concerned about their kids living with UKIP supporters one might think they'd just tell the council that rather than doing it anonymously - and then somehow getting found out as the source anyway.

The only website I read when this story broke claimed just as Eames (and I previously) have suggested, with direct quotes from Thacker. That was the Ch4 News website. The story now however isn't quite the same. The reason's for that I do not know but there was an attributable quote from Thacker saying this

[drat01]

I don't disagree that there's a lot of political point scoring going on Peter, but ultimately it was an entirely incorrect decision that the council made. You can be against the policy of unfettered immigration, and still be able to provide a loving home for children who need one.

That has never been the issue though . On some of the local media up here you get a better view on what is actually happening rather than what the drivel being spouted by "outraged of Surrey" is saying in outlets like the Mail and Torygraph. (not saying they are your sources of info by the way) As many are now pointing out the timing and the way that the "info" is being released and has been so far, from UKIP generally smacks more of an election ploy than anything else. There has been a lot of mud slinging in the run up to the election with a lot of the rhetoric based more on bad mouthing opposition rather than what they will do for the constituency. UKIP is a god awful party with many people (and again apologies for agreeing with Cameron borderline racists within it. They have a lot of what someone on Radio Sheffield rightly described as frothing at the mouth xenophobes. The timing of this complaint is very "convenient" to further the cause of UKIP and as a result you have to wonder how and why it has come into the public domain now.

[drat01]

The only website I read when this story broke claimed just as Eames (and I previously) have suggested, with direct quotes from Thacker. That was the Ch4 News website. The story now however isn't quite the same. The reason's for that I do not know but there was an attributable quote from Thacker saying this

Because Gareth I suspect that not all of the info was then nor is now out for public examination. That will not of course stop many making snap comments about this being a Left wing conspiracy job etc etc. I suspect that, rightly so, the information regarding the fostering case, the reasoning and the impacts for the kids are being considered behind closed doors and not through the politically led rantings of some .

[tonyh29]

Unbiased views :shock:

This is Yorkshire we are talking about isn't it !!

a place so one eyed that the local branches of specsavers only sell monocles....

[drat01]

Unbiased views :shock:

This is Yorkshire we are talking about isn't it !!

a place so one eyed that the local branches of specsavers only sell monocles....

Bit harsh. Especially as your "chums" Messers Hague and Clarkson are from Yorkshire. :-) - I suspect we have quite a few VT'ers who are "yorkies" too that would not take too kindly to that, then again Look North does seem to concentrate far too much on Leeds for my liking ..... :-)

[tonyh29]

We have a few VT'ers from Surrey as well :-)

Was a tad harsh but I thought of my spec savers line and really wanted to use it before I forgot it :-)

[drat01]

Reminded me of this

link

Is the return of the monocle a sign that the Old Etonian Tories are taking control or the preparations for a Labour anti-Toff campaign?

Tory fashion accessory or a cunning plan from Labour Agents across Britain - The Monocle!

Vision Express has announced that it is to start stocking monocles for the first time following a spate of young male customers requesting to buy them.

This apparently came as quite a shock to the major high street retailer who has never sold them before.

I couldn’t help but think that the boys from the Bullingdon Club and the Old Etonians (the Conservative front bench) might all be dashing out to buy them as part of the season’s must have fashion accessory.

But, then it occurred to me that with the increasingly anti-upper class tone of Gordon Brown at Prime Minister’s Question Time and of Labour campaigning it was probably a raft of Labour agents dashing around to buy a monocle for anti-Tory photos for their election literature to show a division between them and their quadruple barrelled opponents.

Only time will tell!

[blandy]

Another "one-eyed" post from Drat, there ( see also the choice of smiley).

[blandy]

..many are now pointing out the timing and the way that the "info" is being released and has been so far, from UKIP generally smacks more of an election ploy than anything else....

Genuine question - what was the timing of the decison by the council - was it ages ago, and just been raked up, or did the council/social workers just do it recently, and UKIP react to that. If it's the latter, then much as many of them are as Cameron described (and many are not) then that's the key, surely - presented with a sudden open goal, or a set piece ploy kept for just this moment to act upon?

[bickster]

Its definitely the open goal but that isn't the key, they key is whether it is the parents that objected. If the children are in temporary care with the consent of the parents (as has been suggested in the media), for example the parents may have health issues and are unable to cope whilst they have treatment, those parents do have a right to object to who those children are fostered with for whatever reason. In a completely different situation and it happened to be me that was the parent, I would completely object to my child being placed with deeply religious people. Having given a previous post some thought, it could quite easily be that the council have changed their tack on the "tip off" to protect the children further, as the media speculation surrounding the story would surely lead to the parents and therefore the children's identity being exposed.

In a sane rational world, this would never even be a story, the children as ever have been forgotten about in the story, the story is all about politics. Some anonymous children are currently being used as political footballs which just about sums up politicians and the media. Where the social workers dropped a bollock here was even mentioning UKIP in the first place, even if as speculated it was the parents that objected and that was their reason. But as the foster parents were members of UKIP and there's an election in that constituency, you'd imagine that these foster parents might have been involved in some sort of electioneering activity, even if it is as minor as folding leaflets to be delivered, in fact they might have been getting the kids to fold the leaflets or it may just have been a poster in the window, who knows but for the UKIP membership to have come out, there must have been some level of political activity going on in the house and the children may just have mentioned it to their real parents. As soon as the parents contact social services, social services have to act, especially as in a previous episode they have already been criticised by a judge for not looking after these very children's cultural and ethnic needs (I think the phrase was)

[drat01]

Pete according to the local radio (along with reports of lost whippets, black pudding catastrophe's and the demise of the word "the") there is no date as to when it all occured - or no one has said it. The local paper - Sheffield Star - are reporting link

Rotherham Council pledges to establish facts over fostering row and pass on details to Government officials

AN internal report has been handed in to Rotherham Council chiefs to try to explain a decision by social workers to remove three children from their foster home because their carers are members of UKIP.

Bosses ordered an explanation over the weekend at the same time as the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, called for an investigation.

There has been widespread condemnation of Rotherham Council after it emerged that a couple who have been fostering for around seven years had three Eastern European children removed from their care because the carers are members of UKIP.

The council told the couple there were concerns over UKIP’s stance on immigration and the ability of the couple to meet the cultural needs of the youngsters.

Today Councillor Roger Stone, Leader of Rotherham Borough Council, said: “This morning I received a report of the immediate investigation that was ordered early on Saturday by the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services. Having now listened to the initial report I am now able to set out the way forward.

“As we said on Saturday, membership of UKIP should not bar someone from fostering.

“The Council places the highest priority on safeguarding children, and our overriding concern in all decisions about the children in our care, is for their best interests.

“We have been able to establish the facts in this case as far as is possible over the weekend, and I can confirm that the children are safe and in very good care.

“However, this remains a very complex case involving legal advice relating to the decision in question, particular features of the children’s background and an external agency responsible for finding and providing the foster carers concerned.

“The Secretary of State for Education has asked for an inquiry relating to this case over the weekend. The Council welcomes this. We will work very closely with and give full cooperation to the Department.

“The Chief Executive has this morning invited the senior officials making the enquiries to meet with him and other council officers in Rotherham as soon as possible, so that this information can be rapidly reported to the Secretary of State.

“In order to help the investigation further, we will also make all the facts established so far available to the Secretary of State’s officials.

“The investigation will focus on the information, advice and evidence gathered before making this decision, the nature of the decision itself and how it was communicated.

“This is a sensitive child protection case. It involves both vulnerable children and the foster carers, so the information the Council is able to release publicly is limited by law.

“At all stages however we will seek to be as open and transparent as possible as we cooperate with the Secretary of State.”

There are a couple of key points though

The council have to be very careful as to what info gets released, there is an "external agency" involved, the council have said that being a member of UKIP is not a reason as to why fostering would be banned,

UKIP immigration policy

• An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement.
  
• After the five year freeze, a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia to be introduced.
  
• An aspiration to ensure that future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people a year.
  
• Regain control of UK borders by leaving the EU.
  
• Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
  
• Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years.
  
• End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government
  

SOURCE: UKIP website

[peterms]

I don't disagree that there's a lot of political point scoring going on Peter, but ultimately it was an entirely incorrect decision that the council made.

Do we have enough information to make that judgement? For example, if the parents had expressed a preference? If the legal advice was clear-cut rather than equivocal? If the parents had said they don't want their kids placed with this family, and if the legal advice had said don't do it, would you say the council should have overridden that and said the preferences of the foster family were paramount? That would be a remarkable thing to do, wouldn't it? And a wrong thing to do.

On the other hand, if it's an individual social worker taking a personal dislike to Ukip and making placement decisions on that basis, I would wonder why the Director would defend it, and what the legal advice was.

I don't think anyone outside the social services department currently has the information to take an informed view, especially Farage and Gove, who are simply playing to the gallery. And of course it's right that the personal details of the family are not paraded for everyone to pick over. What has happened instead of basing a view on full information is that people have been keen to paint a picture which serves their political ends, and the discussion seems to be conducted in those terms.

[tonyh29]

. But as the foster parents were members of UKIP and there's an election in that constituency, you'd imagine that these foster parents might have been involved in some sort of electioneering activity, even if it is as minor as folding leaflets to be delivered, in fact they might have been getting the kids to fold the leaflets or it may just have been a poster in the window, who knows but for the UKIP membership to have come out, there must have been some level of political activity going on in the house

Blimey Bicks that's a giant leap Neil Armstrong would have been proud of :-)

[bickster]

Blimey Bicks that's a giant leap Neil Armstrong would have been proud of :-)

Is it? I can't see why their membership of UKIP would even be known had they not been involved in something actively political for the parents to have discovered this. Parents who need their children to be taken into care must have other over riding issues that would prevent them playing detective, it has most likely come about as something the children had innocently mentioned in a visit with their parents.