Risso Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 it was suggested frequently in this very thread Agreed, I thought the whole thrust of peterms's argument up to now was that the parents had a say in the placement and objected to the UKIP membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 UKIP will be back down to their usual 3-4% at the next General Election. They are a protest vote party Perhaps, although I both hope and suspect not. I hope they still have a reason to 'protest' come the next GE. A large vote for UKIP would mean a heammoraging of Tory support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 It will also likely mean another useless coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 It will also likely mean another useless coalition. will be interesting , nobody wants Clegg , Milliband or Cameron by the looks of things .. wonder if we can vote None of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 it was suggested frequently in this very thread Really? I don't see it. Awol mentioned the council having been tipped off, which seems to be correct, but I don't see any statements that the natural parents told the council that the foster parents were Ukip members. In fact the discussion has been about the exact opposite - the council probably needing to discuss with the natural parents the information it had reportedly received about the foster parents' political affiliations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Agreed, I thought the whole thrust of peterms's argument up to now was that the parents had a say in the placement and objected to the UKIP membership. You must have missed the half dozen posts where I've said that we didn't know the facts of what went on. What I've said is that you and others seem to have rushed to judgement without knowing some key facts, for example whether there had been an objection by the parents. (You do follow that this is not saying "the parents objected to the placement"?) On the particular point you make, one thing I said was I haven't seen suggestions that the parents have complained. What I've seen is statements that social services were told of the foster parents' political affiliations. I would imagine, but I don't know, that they might at that point think it appropriate to seek the natural parents' view. If their view is that they would rather the temporary placement was with someone who wasn't a member of a party opposed to multiculturalism, then the right course of action would be to move the children. And that would be entirely unremarkable, as well as being good practice. It would also be better not to discuss publicly the views expressed privately by the natural parents, but the current hysteria and witchhunting may make that impossible. We'll see. I also said that the council would need to form a view on the suitability of the placement whether or not the parents had objected, once the information about Ukip membership had come to light, and that the parents' views would be given more weight if it was a voluntary arrangement, less if the children had been taken away by court order. But in any event the council have a duty to form a view on the suitability of the placement, taking into account cultural and other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Really? I don't see it. Paging Bicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Paging Bicks I think he was hypothesising... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think he was hypothesising... You even tried to find his channel 4 web site for him :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 You even tried to find his channel 4 web site for him :-) Tried? Succeeded, I hope. I can find a couple for you, if you're jealous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 3, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2012 Yes that was because of parental approval not who tipped them off. I do believe there is no parental approval here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Unless I'm going mad Bicks .. You referred to the parents opinion from the off , we exchanged posts on the very subject in this thread (pages 357 onwards ) , you were even convinced that you had seen on ch4's web site that Thacker had said it was the parents who asked for the children to be removed.. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Let's take a short break for this message Baroness Trumpington - Genuinely Funny Tory and now back to racist UKIP talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Let's take a short break for this message Baroness Trumpington - Genuinely Funny Tory and now back to racist UKIP talk *Video of Boris Johnson doing the 'Mobot'* Ian Hislop: That could be your next leader Baroness Trumpington: ... God!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Interesting article in tonight's standard. Boris making his first real play to oust Cameron. Dead man walking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I see that Tory lies about nhs spending are all in the non right wing media also. Gvmt being told by independent body to correct claim that spending had increased when reality showed it had not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I see that Tory lies about nhs spending are all in the non right wing media also. Gvmt being told by independent body to correct claim that spending had increased when reality showed it had not Interesting that the 2010-11 for NHS spending was set by the previous government. AND as Dilnot acknowledges, NHS spending increased in real terms compared to the previous year by 0.1 per cent. So close but no buffalo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Tony are you sure or have you read what you think what was said? BBC link A watchdog has called on ministers to correct claims the coalition has increased NHS spending in England. The UK Statistics Authority upheld a complaint by Labour about government claims the NHS budget had increased in real-terms in the past two years. The watchdog found the best-available Treasury data suggested real-terms health spending was lower in 2011-12 than in 2009-10. The coalition said during its spending review the NHS budget had gone up. It said NHS spending had decreased in 2010-11 because of budget and spending plans set in place by the previous Labour government. The watchdog has asked ministers to "clarify the statements made". In 2010, the coalition said it would "guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament". Labour asked the watchdog to look into claims made subsequently by the prime minister, the health secretary and others about meeting this commitment. 'Misleading boasts' Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, concluded that changes in NHS spending over the two years had been small and health spending was actually lower in 2011-12 than in 2009-10. Mr Dilnot accepted that there were "questions of definition" and different sources of data. But he said the watchdog's calculations were based on what he considered "the most authoritative source" of national statistics on the subject from the Treasury. In a letter to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Mr Dilnot said: "On the basis of these figures, we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real-terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10. "Given the small size of the changes and the uncertainties associated with them, it might also be fair to say that real-terms expenditure had changed little over this period. "In light of this, I should be grateful if the Department of Health could clarify the statements made." Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said it was evidence the government was cutting the NHS. "For months, David Cameron's government have made misleading boasts about NHS spending, misrepresenting the true financial difficulties he has brought upon the NHS," he said. "The prime minister must come to the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity and correct the record. He has been found out. "He has cut the NHS budget for two years running and he owes it to patients and NHS staff to be honest about that." A Department for Health spokesman said: "The 2010-11 year should not be used a baseline for NHS spending because the budget and spending plans were set in place by the previous government. "For the first year of this government's spending review, as Andrew Dilnot acknowledges, NHS spending increased in real terms compared to the previous year by 0.1%. "The NHS budget will continue to increase in real terms during every year of the current spending review settlement." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 The story you pasted even has the same statement that you are saying I made up :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Tony you have not even read what I have posted have you? your desire to repeat the Tory line has missed the point that was being raised and that being confirmed by people like Dilnot Key phrases for you that you seemingly want to miss "In 2010, the coalition said it would "guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament". "Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, concluded that changes in NHS spending over the two years had been small and health spending was actually lower in 2011-12 than in 2009-10." ""On the basis of these figures, we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real-terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10." I see that Tory lies about nhs spending are all in the non right wing media also. Gvmt being told by independent body to correct claim that spending had increased when reality showed it had not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts