tonyh29 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 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. It was more how the children were Chinese and working in a UKIP version of a Nike factory I was questioning :-) The impression I get is that foster parents are rigerously screened so I would imagine their voting intent was well known ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 26, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 26, 2012 The impression I get is that foster parents are rigerously screened so I would imagine their voting intent was well known ? Not in my experience, the question isn't asked. And as I've just filled out a huge background questionnaire to help my Bro-in-law become a foster parent I do speak from some limited very recent experience. The background checks are more to with previous relationships and interactions with children rather than voting intentions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 UKIP Candidate likens gay adoption to child abuse Ukip's candidate for this week's byelection in Croydon North has attracted criticism after suggesting that it would not be "healthy" for children to be adopted by gay couples. Winston McKenzie's comments were quoted by local media in the south London constituency days after his counterpart in the Rotherham byelection was given a boost on the back of publicity surrounding the local council's decision to remove three young children from their foster parents because the couple were members of the party. "If you couldn't look after your child and you had to put them up for adoption, would you honestly want your child to be adopted by a gay couple?" McKenzie asked a reporter for the Croydon Advertiser. "Would you seriously want that or a heterosexual family? Which would be more healthy for the child? "A caring loving home is a heterosexual or single family. I don't believe [a gay couple] is healthy for a child." The newspaper added that the former boxer, who is Ukip's spokesman for culture, media and sport, claimed couples might raise the child to be gay. McKenzie was also quoted by the Metro newspaper as claiming that placing children with gay or lesbian couples was "child abuse". "To say to a child, 'I am having you adopted by two men who kiss regularly but don't worry about it' – that is abuse. It is a violation of a child's human rights because that child has no opportunity to grow up under normal circumstances," he is reported to have said. The comments were criticised by gay rights campaigners – the chief executive of Stonewall, Ben Summerskill, described them as "inflammatory". "These 19th-century views are not acceptable in the 21st century," he told Pink News. McKenzie, a former member of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, is the older brother of the former boxing champion Duke McKenzie. Oh dear oh dear oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Not in my experience, the question isn't asked. And as I've just filled out a huge background questionnaire to help my Bro-in-law become a foster parent I do speak from some limited very recent experience. The background checks are more to with previous relationships and interactions with children rather than voting intentions Yeah, my parents fostered/adopted (was a long term fostering rather than straight adoption) and 'how do you intend to vote at the next election' is certainly not an issue that comes under scrutiny. Quite rightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Three examples of the power of lobbying groups. Developers prefer to build new housing on greenfield sites. They fund the tories. The planning minister tells us we need to build lots more houses on lots more land, despite recognising that the new housing they build is pretty crap. He is also taking power away from local authorities to refuse planning permission or require social housing, handing decisions to a central planning inspectorate with no right of appeal against its decisions. So much for "localism". The big banks have been lobbying against effective regulation, and against being broken up. The new governor of the Bank of England appointed by Osborne is against breaking up the big banks. The Leveson report is out tomorrow. There has been an increasingly shrill lobby from the papers against having regulation backed by law. Among the people they have recruited to back their position is David Blunkett, who receives regular large payments from the press. Bizarrely, he takes money for serving them even as they **** him over: these two entries are next to each other. "Advisory post for corporate social responsibility (volunteering and education) for News International, 1 Virginia Street, London E98 1HR. (6-month contract, £25,000)" (January 2012). "Following negotiations relating to intrusion and substantial damage caused to my family (as well as myself), News International paid damages to close members of my family in July 2011." (December 2011). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The planning minister tells us... Boles, seen as a social moderniser in the Tory party... What the bollocks is one of those when it's at home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 What the bollocks is one of those when it's at home? Not sure, but maybe liberal on social issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Sounds Maoist to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 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. I don't know much about the subject, but do parents whose kids have been taken into care have much of a say in where they end up? And if they do, how would they find out what political party the chosen foster parents support? And if they are given that sort of information, then surely the kids wouldn't have been put with that foster family in the first place. I stand to be corrected, but it all sounds quite unlikely to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Telegraph article about Rotherham is interesting Seems to be a lot of ill feeling in the area Whilst I doubt UKIP can overturn the labour majority it will be interesting to see if they do pickup lots of voters and what impact it will have on the cons and labour in regards to Europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I don't know much about the subject, but do parents whose kids have been taken into care have much of a say in where they end up? And if they do, how would they find out what political party the chosen foster parents support? And if they are given that sort of information, then surely the kids wouldn't have been put with that foster family in the first place. I stand to be corrected, but it all sounds quite unlikely to me. Not my area either, but there would need to be a written care plan, including The following things must be included in your child‟s plan: - Your wishes and feelings (i.e. the parents)... - The placement plan setting out where and with whom your child will live, any specific arrangements about the placement including the arrangements for your child to keep in touch with you and other members of the family; and also what the foster carer can decide about how your child is cared for and the local authority must - consider your child‟s religion, racial origin, cultural and linguistic background when making any decision about them; - consult with you... about any decision concerning your child‟s care unless the court says they don‟t have to. This means they should discuss with you what would be the best arrangements for your child whilst they are away from home (Here) If the children have been taken into care by court order, the parents must be shown the care plan. If they are in care by agreement, the plan must be agreed with the parents where possible. To me, that means that if social workers become aware of information which they might reasonably think may affect the views of the parents about where their children are living, or who with, specifically including things to do with cultural and racial factors, they would be required to discuss this with the parents and if requested, where practicable, change the placement. I have no idea whether this is what happened. But it seems to me that having been advised that the foster parents were members of a political party which seeks to restrict immigration in ways which would adversely affect people like the natural parents (assuming reports on their background are accurate), the social workers ought to have discussed it with the parents, and in particular should have asked whether they wanted an alternative placement to be arranged. Especially since they had been criticised by a court for failing to meet this legal requirement to consider cultural factors previously. I assume the information about political affiliation came to light after the placement had started - the reports seem to suggest that, but I don't think I've seen a timeline anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Telegraph article about Rotherham is interesting Seems to be a lot of ill feeling in the area Whilst I doubt UKIP can overturn the labour majority it will be interesting to see if they do pickup lots of voters and what impact it will have on the cons and labour in regards to Europe There have been the usual quotes and replies in various media outlets. I must admit the UKIP people are playing what is actually quite a seedy campaign by the looks of it, obviously desperate for a few headlines. But as Mr Cameron Esq of somewhere posh down south said last week "what what top hole oik" - or something about By-Elections not really mattering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Turns out that the 3 kids are now with 2 different families That will probably harm them more than being cuddled by someone who believes that the UK should leave the European Union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 28, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 28, 2012 Turns out that the 3 kids are now with 2 different families That will probably harm them more than being cuddled by someone who believes that the UK should leave the European Union Fairly sure I've read that this was only ever a short term emergency fostering, so it's obviously not the perfect situation but also will have little long term effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Fairly sure I've read that this was only ever a short term emergency fostering Which makes you wonder why Thacker's main reasoning for moving them was consideration the children's long term cultural and ethnic needs... Or maybe that was just BS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 More UKIP B/S coming out and political point scoring, which is actually quite disgusting but only to be expected from that party and it's supporters. On this morning's local news they are still trying to make this an election subject, or THE election subject knowing for certain that most of the facts rightly cannot be discussed at this moment in the public domain. The more I see and hear from this party the more I start to think that maybe the people who decided that UKIP activists maybe are not the right people to look after kids from this background, especially if they are going to be surrounded by people with such damaging views. Cameron's summing up of them seems pretty accurate for once. At the right time and when all facts are available there needs to be an enquiry into what has happened, an enquiry done correctly and fairly away from the election posturing that UKIP supporters especially have undertaken since this story conveniently hit the press. It's interesting that the foster couple have "conveniently" been using outlets like the Mail to "advise" them on the media I have been working with the Rotherham foster couple to guide them through the minefield of the media. You could not wish to meet a nicer couple. It made me cry today when I picked up a copy of today’s Sun and read that they had bought the children Christmas presents. I spoke to the foster father this afternoon and he said they were very upset that the children may not get them. A plague on all your houses you left –wing, blinkered, apartheid supporting, ideologically driven, ignorant directors of social services and social workers up and down the UK. . If these are the people that you are seeking advice from, maybe that shows you are probably not the correct people to be fostering these kids? From the "loony closet racist" web site Help us in Rotherham Monday, 26th November 2012 UKIP fostering scandal: has Labour just lost the Rotherham by-election? Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph: "In a low-turnout by-election with big protest vote potential, the fostering decision by a Labour council could just be the kind of issue UKIP might use to pull off an upset. It's still much more likely that Labour will win, of course. But if I was them (UKIP), I'd pile everything I have, and more, into Rotherham." UKIP is facing one the biggest opportunities in our history. You will all have seen the massive coverage of the Rotherham 'fostering' story over the past two days. Just a trawl around that god awful web site shows some of the "tolerant" views held by the UKIP party and its supporters - it could easily be a cut a paste from the BNP or Tea Party etc The UK Independence Party's position on this issue may be stated simply: while UKIP fully supports the concept of civil partnerships, it opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage. etc etc You also have to remember there are other "local" elements re UKIP - Sheffield UKIP candidate Steve Moxon was stripped of his candidacy after writing a blog that endorsed the reasoning in the testament of the extreme-right Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik. and various other examples. As Searchlight show the policies and links that UKIP have with Ultra Right wing racists parties, ironically across Europe does not make good reading UKIP’s proximity to extremist tendencies can also be witnessed in its partners in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament, which include right-wing populist parties that campaign on an anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim ticket such as the Northern League (Lega Nord, Italy), Slovak National Party (Slovakia) and People’s Orthodox Rally (usually abbreviated to LAOS, Greece). UKIP has also been building links with Geert Wilders’s Islamophobic Freedom Party in the Netherlands over several years including hosting a viewing of his film Fitna in the House of Lords in 2010. UKIP’s 2011 party conference featured speakers from the Dutch Freedom party and the Finnish True Finns party. In 2012 Nigel Farage was guest of honour at a reception hosted by the ultra-nationalist LAOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The more I see and hear from this party the more I start to think that maybe the people who decided that UKIP activists maybe are not the right people to look after kids from this background, especially if they are going to be surrounded by people with such damaging views. Damaging to whom? The previous ethnic minority kids they cared for (which earned them a reputation as exemplary foster parents), or three latest kids who were happy in their home, whose language the carers were learning, and who have now been split up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Damaging to whom? The previous ethnic minority kids they cared for (which earned them a reputation as exemplary foster parents), or three latest kids who were happy in their home, whose language the carers were learning, and who have now been split up? Again you fail to read anything that is posted just jumping in with massive boots. So you have the full details of the kids do you and the circumstances? Or are you taking the words of the local UKIP sponsored media feed? In your desire to defend UKIP you miss out, very much like the local UKIP rabble, what the criteria are for the fostering of the kids. What information is out within the public domain and what is known of the kids and the ideological thinking of the foster parents obviously raised concern with the authorities. Based on that action was seemingly taken to move the kids to other foster parents. As said, and as you are conveniently missing the point of, UKIP, it's supporters and the like are making political statements more for their own benefit than the welfare of the kids. You cannot deny that, but no doubt you will. Maybe from your foreign location you will be able to pick up some of the local South Yorkshire media and listen to what is being said. Failing that maybe you can comment on the tone and the articles I quoted - are they suitable or are they just showing what the real motivations are from those shouting the loudest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The more I see and hear from this party the more I start to think that maybe the people who decided that UKIP activists maybe are not the right people to look after kids from this background I've not seen any reports that suggest they are "Activists" ... just that they were former labour voters who now vote UKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts