Awol

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'. 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. Eames initially seemed to base his support of this action on that point, (it was then pointed out that this hasn't been reported anywhere other than this thread), before changing tack and stating that if that was the case we wouldn't be told anyway.. Go figure, as our American cousins would say. Yes, I can imagine that conversation: Social: Have you heard of UKIP? Parents: Who? Social: Oooh dear, UKIP are "a bunch of swivel eye'd, half arsed, racist. xenophobic old farts whose short sighted, jingoistic"...etc. We've placed you're children with two their supporters, hopefully they won't eat them. Is that ok? Parents: You've done WHAT??! Social: Well if that's how you feel... Like anyone else when they do a good job they should be commended. When they screw up like this they deserve to be bent over and reamed with a Christmas tree - metaphorically speaking.

I very much doubt the "swivel eyed" (although I believe euro-sceptic is the more polite term) Mr Farage liaised with Thacker to time their actions to coincide with the imminent by-election, but it makes for an interesting conspiracy theory... Anyway, the cretinous social worker told the foster carers that it was their support for UKIP (a party with apparently "racist policies") that was the driver to end the placement because of the children's ethnic origin. They did say that the family could continue to foster white British children - so no one is suggesting a blanket ban, but clearly and as the tossers in Rotherham have openly admitted, this was a decision based on the politics of race. This despite them having previous fostered seven ethnic minority children and by the council's own admission, having an exemplary record of doing so. Clearly if it is not a problem with the ability of the foster parents then it is politically driven. 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. Seems to me the Guardianista types are circling the wagons to protect one of their own, after all if Thacker is against UKIP then she must be a true believer and therefore a good egg.

From the Grud Apparently there wasn't a problem with the seven other ethnic minority children they had previously fostered... Just for Bickster ;-) from the same article:

Being anti-open door immigration from Eastern Europe is (imo, deliberately) conflated with being anti-European (the people rather than the political structures) in general. In extreme cases it is taken further and described as racism, as in the case of the halfwit social worker in Rotherham. In reply to Bickster's comment in the other thread that UKIP are not a mainstream political party, I'd point out that for the last two years or so they have polled either just below or just above the lib dems nationally, came third in the recent Corby by-election with over 14% of the vote (above the lib dems who took just under 5%) and came second nationally in the last European elections. Unless we are arguing that the lib dems are a fringe party I don't see how that statement stands up? The council's own internal report on the issue should be out tomorrow and will hopefully prove that these children weren't moved simply because left wing ideologues didn't like the foster carers political beliefs. The Telegraph is suggesting that while Thacker was head of child services in Bradford anyone of her staff who made accusations about gangs of Asian men grooming and abusing white children would be sacked for racism... Smart woman.

Did you see Thacker's BBC news interview or hear her on Radio 4 Today programme, yesterday? If as she claims this was an emergency placement then her primary reasoning for this decision that she had to be mindful of the kids "long term cultural and ethnic needs" doesn't make any sense. She admitted that the sole reason the children were removed was because of the foster carers membership of UKIP, not that the placement had come to a scheduled end. Indeed the children are reportedly know with another white British family - presumably of greater political reliability in the views of Rotherham Council - and not their natural parents. It seems that the nature of the placement is being used as a justification after the fact to cover for the actual reason they were removed which was the council's political prejudice. Further evidence for the political motivation comes from the exchange with the social worker when the children were moved, in which she stated that UKIP had racist policies which made them unsuitable to care for these children. Subsequently the council have said they can continue to foster, but only white British children. The only reference I've heard to the complainant was the council receiving an "anonymous tip" informing them that the foster parents were *gasp* members of a mainstream political party (btw is this South Yorkshire or East Germany?). The only place I've read that the tipsters were the children's natural parents is on here. If it were true it seems very strange that I can't find a single reference to it and the 'anonymous tip off' is still the main story. Well the council's own review will report tomorrow, hopefully the picture will then be much clearer. Only if Rotherham Council decided to time the execution of this action to try and benefit UKIP, which I'm sure we can agree is unlikely. It won't make any difference to the result anyway, most of South Yorkshire would elect a corpse if it was the Labour candidate.

The fact that Ed Miliband is calling for an urgent inquiry (now granted) suggests even he realises how utterly retarded Rotherham Council are being. Membership of which other mainstream political parties are on Rotherham Council's prescribed list for foster parents? The idea that being UKIP members makes them unsuitable to be foster carers of non-white children is basically political persecution. Being opposed to open door immigration doesn't equal racism, and the fact some blubbering tart from social services swallows that idea whole just shows how successful Labour's propaganda has been over the last decade in making those issues indivisible in the minds of left wing drones. Joyce Thacker, Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services at Rotherham Council said, "UKIP want to outlaw multiculturalism". That is statement of such glaring stupidity that she should be sacked from her post simply for being thick as ****. No one that dumb should be making decisions for hundreds of foster children. If this gets anywhere near a courtroom I'd suggest Ms Thacker will be in very hot water indeed.

Good point, well made. There doesn't seem to be an equal amount of enthusiasm to unmask wrongdoers on the Republican side, but as you say events in Boston may put disclosure of names beyond their control.

So we have a new Egyptian dictatorship. I'm shocked..

Hence "the best you can hope for", not "don't worry God will roast their balls for all eternity". There will be no earthly justice for the scum that did it.

Seems like fairly poor marksmanship. Small targets, but still it's not like they were shooting back.

Mate I agree with the sentiment but the best you can hope for is that whoever did it will have to square their actions with the big man in the sky eventually. UK PLC is not going after the old and bold of PIRA to hold them to account. A petition won't change that, it's just politics.

Economic collapse leads to poverty, fear and social breakdown so (some or even many) people look for stability, safety and order. The worse the situation, the more extreme the solution they are prepared to endorse. With the Golden Dawn mob that seems to be manifested as extreme nationalism rather than hatred for any particular minority. If GD won an election the army would step in and take over imo, on the basis that even a military dictatorship is preferable to a rebirth of European fascism.

Sorry but we let all the convicted IRA murderers out a while ago, there is precious little (government) enthusiasm to go hunting for those who got away with it completely. However if you fancy a one man Chuck Norris style settling of scores, Boston might be a good place to start looking.

Great news that there is at least a chance for this to de-escalate but as Peter alludes to above, should more than a slack handful of rockets now be fired at Israel Bibi and friends can turn to Obama and say 'we told you so' before unleashing holy hell on Gaza. I understand the point that Hamas doesn't control every militant in Gaza, but they wanted to be the government there so like everywhere else in the world the buck stops with them. Chuckled at the Hamas guy making his speech praising Iran for financing and arming them, a proper two fingered salute to Israel, the US and the West in general.

Source: "The Electronic Intifada".....*raises eyebrow in a sceptical fashion*

Peter, with respect I think you've got the timeline mixed up: Hamas was firing rockets at towns and cities in Southern Israel for weeks prior to the Israeli decision to start hitting them back. Whether it's a fair fight, whether they have a parity of equipment or of reach is irrelevant. Hamas started this round of conflict but took the metaphorical knife to a gun fight. More fool them, frankly, unless provoking a war was exactly what they intended in the first place. You could (and probably will) counter with arguments of refugees, land grabs in 1948 et al, none of which obscures the fact that now, in this conflict, Hamas were the instigators and Israel is responding as any other government on earth would be forced to do, in an attempt to end the rocket fire against its territory. I also agree with Snowy that the bus bombing by Hamas has knackered any serious chance of a cease fire. Again, you'd be hard pressed to surmise that this wasn't the express intention of doing it at all, knowing as they do how the Israeli government will be forced to respond.

Almost, from what I can gather the government have added the element of compulsion in law, which was lacking from the ofgem proposal.

Thank you, but I could have figured that one out myself, was more looking for people's opinions on here. Heard them talking about it on Radio 4 this morning and even they couldn't seem to pick holes in it and generally thought it was a good plan - particularly simplifying and reducing the number of tariffs to four per company. Given the BBC default setting is that any coalition policy = world ending, I thought maybe it was actually a good thing.

So is there any value in these promises to legislate and force energy companies to automatically give consumers the lowest possible tariff? Sounds good on the face of it.

Would be interesting to see the relative ratio's of munitions fired by the two sides over the same period, I suspect those numbers would be an awful lot closer. (Not to detract from the tragedy of the fact that civilians are being killed at all).

Cameron could shoot the UKIP fox at a stroke by holding an in or out referendum before or in tandem with the next general election. As stated most UKIP supporters are basically Tory voters who believe the EU has now encroached so far into national sovereignty without a genuine mandate that it should be put to a popular vote. From a democratic perspective that is not an unreasonable point of view. I suspect very few UKIP supporters see Farage and co as a credible party of government but will vote for them anyway out of principle - much like those who vote for the Greens from that perspective. If Cameron did that he'd have a good chance of uniting the centre right vote and winning next time. Sadly he lacks the moral courage to that and also lacks the steel to jettison that cheese pilot Osborne, another massive vote loser, imo.

If saying "help them settle back in the country of their birth" has a substantially different meaning to "send them home", then I apologise. It seems to me the first phrase is simply a more polite way of expressing the sentiment contained in the second.

So out of interest if the very concept of Israeli nation is wrong in your opinion, do you subscribe to Bickster's view posted earlier in the thread @ #149 - crudely put "send them (the Jews) home"?

Precisely. If there is one thing Arabs hate more than infidels, it's other Arabs.

Iran is Shia, Hezbollah are a Shia outfit (or more properly an army without a state) and Assad's Alawite sect are Shia. The Syrian rebels are Sunni mostly whichb is why Saudi and Qatar are backing them and Iran backing Assad both directly and by proxy - Hezbollah. The big game is Sunni Saudi versus Shia Iran. If Israeli jets ever hit Iran's nuclear sites they will have flown through air corridors in Saudi airspace provided to them for the purpose. Most of the ME is anti-Israel in rhetoric only, they have good relations with most of the Gulf at government level.