Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

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.

We don't know all of it because the council are refusing to disclose the outcome of their internal investigation. I'm sure that has nothing to do with today's by-election... We do know what Thacker herself said to the BBC which was that these children were removed solely because the foster parents were UKIP supporters. Why some on here are so loathe to acknowledge that simple point I don't know.

[tonyh29]

I really fail to see your point re Labour Tony. And as for it being reported everywhere, I have not seen it mentioned anywhere

so much for the all seeing Yorkshire media then as the rest of the press are full of it

. Their past voting record has no relevance whatsoever to anything other than a deflection.

I merely pointed out their previous voting background .. in light that you were quoting searchlight and other sources from the "approved" list I thought you were trying to build a case that UKIP was a racist party and only appealed to the Blue rinse ex Tory voter , perhaps if you told us what point you were trying to make we'd be able to give a clearer answer

me thinks you are being mischievous somewhat.

who me , never ...

[tonyh29]

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.

Yeah where is a friendly copper leaking his notebook to the Sun when you need one

[tonyh29]

You do not know that they have passed any test, nor do I.

actually we do , because they have fostered countless children before and were screened as part of the process

as you and I suspect other UKIP supporters well know.

You seem to be getting more more confused than Blair at a Chilcot enquiry , since when have i been a UKIP supporter ?

Knowing that Rottherham council were wrong doesn't = UKIP supporter

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.

You've been arguing it wasn't about their political belief and now suddenly you are saying it is ..make up your mind

the environment was good enough for the previous children they fostered , good enough to get them on the list and stay on it ... indeed they were described as exemplary" foster parents

when the lady that removed them states very publicly that they were removed

beacuse of political affiliations to Ukip

So when it became clear to us that the couple had political affiliations to Ukip we had to seriously think about the longer term needs of the children.

then really your arguments ... well you don't actually have one

[Richard]

On this debate I think Rotherham’s reasons for denying this family the chance to foster are indefensible. The ideology behind their decision is actively harmful to children. How can we allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families?

In my opinion anyone saying that are more guilty of being prejudiced as those they are accusing of such.

[bickster]

IF being the operative word

Of course but even if the council made the original decision, they would have had to go back to the parents to agree a new care plan which the parents again could have said no leave them where they are so the if isn't that big an if.

We don't know all of it because the council are refusing to disclose the outcome of their internal investigation. I'm sure that has nothing to do with today's by-election... We do know what Thacker herself said to the BBC which was that these children were removed solely because the foster parents were UKIP supporters. Why some on here are so loathe to acknowledge that simple point I don't know.

How many people in this topic have said that they weren't removed because of the UKIP membership in recent posts? Some at the beginning of the discussion maybe but I think we've all moved on considerably since then. But as Peter rightly says we're all speculating and to be honest, that is the way it should remain unless the safety and anonymity of the family concerned can be guaranteed. The safeguarding of these vulnerable children is paramount here.

What is most galling about the whole thing is that any decision was made with that safeguarding as a paramount concern and people are trying to make enormous political capital out of this. It may not have been the parents who originally made this an issue. Every single council in the country has a safeguarding of vulnerable children unit and they have to investigate and act on any information they have received, this information also has to be treated anonymously. You'll find them advertising this in all manner of places, I just saw one in our doctors surgery when I popped in to pick up a prescription. These units also have to take a safety first approach and should there be any doubts as to the suitability of the fostering couple they have to remove the children, they would also have to inform the parents who would again have to agree the new care plan.

More and more people in this country are being made aware of safeguarding issues, more than you'd imagine. I was on a course myself about it only a few weeks ago. Thats right, taxi drivers working for companies that have council contracts have to do courses on safeguarding and they are duty bound to report any issue they think may be of concern. This is all part of a council's legal duty of care. We've already put 400 drivers out of 1800 through the safeguarding courses (both vulnerable adults and children), plus visually impaired training and first aid courses. It's all about trying to prevent vulnerable people being placed in any danger or inappropriate conditions and it is most definitely a safety first approach.

Foster parents will be all too aware of this as one of our drivers involved in the course I did was at pains to point out. He is a foster parent and he told us quite clearly that children can be taken away at a moments notice for whatever reason and they have to be prepared for that at all times, it goes with the territory. So with that in my mind, I can only assume that these foster parents are being motivated politically right now (or being extremely badly advised) as some of the statements they have made to press are either disingenuous or they have never received the correct advice on fostering in the first place.

[bickster]

On this debate I think Rotherham’s reasons for denying this family the chance to foster are indefensible. The ideology behind their decision is actively harmful to children. How can we allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families?

In my opinion anyone saying that are more guilty of being prejudiced as those they are accusing of such.

Do you understand the responsibilities of a council in the safeguarding of vulnerable children? Do you understand the legal ramifications of a council not acting on information received by their safeguarding unit?

You do know that there has already been a judgement on these children that states that the council have to take cultural and ethnic considerations with regards to the children, thats a judge telling them that!

[Richard]

Do you understand the responsibilities of a council in the safeguarding of vulnerable children? Do you understand the legal ramifications of a council not acting on information received by their safeguarding unit?

Yes thanks.

[markavfc40]

Do you understand the responsibilities of a council in the safeguarding of vulnerable children? Do you understand the legal ramifications of a council not acting on information received by their safeguarding unit?

You do know that there has already been a judgement on these children that states that the council have to take cultural and ethnic considerations with regards to the children, thats a judge telling them that!

Spot on Gareth and Richard of all people should know the responsibilities of the Council.

[peterms]

On this debate I think Rotherham’s reasons for denying this family the chance to foster are indefensible.

You must know, if you've read even the first thing about it, that what you say is nonsense. The family are not being denied the chance to foster. They are simply not being allowed to continue to foster these children. Do you not understand the difference?

The ideology behind their decision is actively harmful to children.

You have no idea whether it is ideology or parental choice or something else. You are just repeating ideology yourself.

How can we allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families?

Because the law allows, indeed in some situations requires, that such considerations are taken into account.

[tonyh29]

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?

I don't know knowing Yorkshire and it's recent voting history that would probably increase it to 95%

but on a serious matter , after reading your sentence I had a look at the UKIP immigration policy on their web site and other than illegal immigrants , I couldn't see any mention of the words "Removing Immigrants" .... now there may be a difference in their definition or "illegal" to the laymans definition of "removal " but it doesn't appear to be a policy of theirs , so your poll question appears to be flawed

as for the policy of cutting back on fellow immigrants , didn't Ed say recently in a speech that a future Labour government would introduce "maximum transitional controls" to limit migration .... of course UKIP must be racist as they want to control immigration ...oooops

[peterms]

We don't know all of it because the council are refusing to disclose the outcome of their internal investigation. I'm sure that has nothing to do with today's by-election...

The clear duty of social services in this or any other case is to prevent, as far as it lies in their power, families being used as political footballs. If that means not disclosing personal details, and not releasing for a couple of days information which it is abundantly clear people want only in order to make political capital in the frenzied atmosphere of the by-election, fine.

We do know what Thacker herself said to the BBC which was that these children were removed solely because the foster parents were UKIP supporters. Why some on here are so loathe to acknowledge that simple point I don't know.

Because they are Ukip supporters - yes. Solely - we don't know. It may for example have been the wish of the parents, once this new information came to light.

[colhint]

I agree with lots of what you say there Bicks, however. The judge has advised them to consider the cultural and ethnic considerations. Not that they must not be put with ukip families. Now It is up to The childrens services to decide what is best for these children. First if they were advised by the judge to consider the cultural ethnic options, I would have thought, or hoped they would have decided these individuals are ok. They failed to do this. Second having made the decision to put them there, they have then had to decide what is best for these children. Whether to keep them there, bear in mind this is only a short term adoption, or to split them up and put them somewhere else for another short term adoption. They have decided , not the court, the children would be better off being split up. And the only reason I can see is there political affiliation. Had another place been made available with a racist family from either Labour or the Tories would it have been an issue. Now I am not defending UKIP here, I am saying what a disgrace their childrens' services' are. Well the head anyway.

[peterms]

as for the policy of cutting back on fellow immigrants , didn't Ed say recently in a speech that a future Labour government would introduce "maximum transitional controls" to limit migration .... of course UKIP must be racist as they want to control immigration ...oooops

Ukip's immigration policy favours people who are fluent in English. It is a policy which would lead to a quite different racial profile of those immigrating. That is of course its intention.

[tonyh29]

Ukip's immigration policy favours people who are fluent in English. It is a policy which would lead to a quite different racial profile of those immigrating. That is of course its intention.

grey = no data , rather than no English spoken

[colhint]

The clear duty of social services in this or any other case is to prevent, as far as it lies in their power, families being used as political footballs. If that means not disclosing personal details, and not releasing for a couple of days information which it is abundantly clear people want only in order to make political capital in the frenzied atmosphere of the by-election, fine.

Because they are Ukip supporters - yes. Solely - we don't know. It may for example have been the wish of the parents, once this new information came to light.

I don't think you are right there Peter. Thacker did say on BBC it was soley because of ukip.

Now I think I'm certain the childrens service priority is to the children. I'm sure they have to consider many things race and ethnicity being just part of it. However they have to make a judgement, keep the kids in a home or put them out to foster. It would seem that in Rotherham some kids would be better off in a home and some out to foster.

[snowychap]

as for the policy of cutting back on fellow immigrants , didn't Ed say recently in a speech that a future Labour government would introduce "maximum transitional controls" to limit migration.... of course UKIP must be racist as they want to control immigration ...oooops

That's a bit apples and oranges*, isn't it?

Transitional arrangements are just about the progress from close control to no control over future newly acceded countries, no?

*not pears

[Richard]

I agree with lots of what you say there Bicks, however. The judge has advised them to consider the cultural and ethnic considerations. Not that they must not be put with ukip families. Now It is up to The childrens services to decide what is best for these children. First if they were advised by the judge to consider the cultural ethnic options, I would have thought, or hoped they would have decided these individuals are ok. They failed to do this. Second having made the decision to put them there, they have then had to decide what is best for these children. Whether to keep them there, bear in mind this is only a short term adoption, or to split them up and put them somewhere else for another short term adoption. They have decided , not the court, the children would be better off being split up. And the only reason I can see is there political affiliation. Had another place been made available with a racist family from either Labour or the Tories would it have been an issue. Now I am not defending UKIP here, I am saying what a disgrace their childrens' services' are. Well the head anyway.

A far post i agree with

[bickster]

I agree with lots of what you say there Bicks, however. The judge has advised them to consider the cultural and ethnic considerations. Not that they must not be put with ukip families. Now It is up to The childrens services to decide what is best for these children. First if they were advised by the judge to consider the cultural ethnic options, I would have thought, or hoped they would have decided these individuals are ok. They failed to do this. Second having made the decision to put them there, they have then had to decide what is best for these children. Whether to keep them there, bear in mind this is only a short term adoption, or to split them up and put them somewhere else for another short term adoption. They have decided , not the court, the children would be better off being split up. And the only reason I can see is there political affiliation. Had another place been made available with a racist family from either Labour or the Tories would it have been an issue. Now I am not defending UKIP here, I am saying what a disgrace their childrens' services' are. Well the head anyway.

Not quite correct, the judge has criticised them for not taking cultural and ethnic considerations into account in a previous episode, the implication is therefore that they must do this. It is up to Children's Services to decide what is best but as has been stated a number of times because this is a short term fostering with the agreement of the parents they have to agree a care plan with the parents. Nobody has said that this fostering couple aren't suitable to foster, it has just been decided they aren't suitable for this particular family. They may not have had much option but to split the family up at such short notice. It is well known that there is a severe shortage of foster parents, it is also highly unlikely that there would be many families available to take three children especially at such short notice.

How can the Head of their Children's Services be a disgrace because her staff are doing what they have to do under the legal framework?

[colhint]

By implication does it not mean that these people can only adopt british people. And the reason I think she is a disgrace is because she has decided, not the court, that these peoples views, by association with a political party are not suitable. If they are not consistent with multicultural ideals, is it ok to instill these opinions on British kids but not on those from other backgrounds.