tonyh29 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You're still reading the headlines Tony, these kids were only in very short term care (for reasons unknown). To keep the kids with this couple would have been going against the parents wishes. That is social services job, they'd have been sued to buggery by the parents if they hadn't removed the kids. An the foster parents have shown their true colours by attempting to make political mileage out of it during a by-election, that in itself makes them unsuitable Only read a few sources on the web but I've not seen the original parents wishes mentioned in any of them ,nor does Thacker mention it in any of her reasons for removing the children ..... Where are you getting that info from ? I don't doubt political mileage is being made of it but if I was the couple I'd be rightly outraged and shouting to the media as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 road in China has been built around a house after 2 residents wouldn't move .. I'm a little surprised as the Chinese government aren't exactly renowned for the adherence to rights of citizens And they could not divert the road slightly onto the obvious barren land next to the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 As usual, the story is focused in completely the wrong place. This story is about children being fostered on a very short term basis, which is usually done because of some family emergency at home and not because the parents are unfit to be parents. 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. It is therefore only right that those parents have some sort of say in the type of family their children are being cared for it being as it is fairly safe to assume that they will be re-united at some point in the not too distant future. For all we know, the two parents could be hospitalised and there is no other family support mechanism to look after the children. If the parents of the children object to where they are being fostered is that really such a bad thing? 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. The quotes from Joyce Thacker are a little naive but they aren't, as if often the case in stories like this, the actual story here. The story is that two parents were unable to look after their own children temporarily, those children were then fostered to people the parents considered inappropriate, social services then acted upon this. It's what they are meant to do. It doesn't matter whether you or I think the parents opinion is incorrect or misguided, its their opinion and it is the one that counts. So the story here is... socail services did their job, as they are supposed to do but that doesn't really get many headlines. Well the council's own review will report tomorrow, hopefully the picture will then be much clearer. Any coincidence that there is a by-election in Rotherham next week? 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 25, 2012 Only read a few sources on the web but I've not seen the original parents wishes mentioned in any of them ,nor does Thacker mention it in any of her reasons for removing the children ..... Where are you getting that info from ? I don't doubt political mileage is being made of it but if I was the couple I'd be rightly outraged and shouting to the media as well Ch4 News site was where I read that quote, direct from Thacker iirc. On a completely different note. UKIP are not a "mainstream" political party in any sense of the word, they run at about 3% of the electorate. Even in Farage's latest quotes, he agrees he blames the mainstream parties, blah. He doesn't see his party as mainstream. not that this matters at all in any sense, its just me being pedantic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted November 26, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 26, 2012 A few days late on this, but a gas explosion not too far from where I used to live Strip club destroyed in gas explosion (video) The strip club in question was, under its various guises over the years, one of the worse establishments in Springfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 God's wrath ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted December 4, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2012 Anyone see the cover of today's New York Post? :shock: The New York Post’s front page this morning is catching a lot of criticism. The picture was captured by freelance photographer R. Umar Abbasi, as he happened to see 58-year-old Queens resident Ki Suk Han be pushed onto the Q train tracks at the 49th street station. Suk Han was hit by the train, and later pronounced dead at the hospital. His attacker is still on the run from cops. According to many, the Post never should’ve published the grim photo. “Sickening rubber-necking front page from the New York Post,” tweeted The Guardian’s sports editor, Ian Prior. “Imagine how this man’s family feels.” Charles Ornstein, a senior reporter at ProPublica, commented that the cover was “over the line.” Ethan Klapper, social media editor for The Huffington Post, tweeted that the picture was “too gruesome for A1.” Abbasi said that he was able to get the picture because he was running toward the train, trying to warn the conductor with his camera’s flash. We’ve reached out to the Post for comment on the photo, and will update when we hear back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 4, 2012 Grim stuff. I'd be disappointed if I didn't escape from that position though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Shouldn't it be "Pushed onto the subway track"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Dark stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Grim stuff. I'd be disappointed if I didn't escape from that position though. Disappointed? Not sure how you could be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 4, 2012 Being dead must be quite disappointing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 4, 2012 Disappointed? Not sure how you could be disappointed. Ok, in the brief second before I died I'd be disappointed. Then I'd be dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well, you could argue that it is in bad taste, but I'd argue it says something important about this kind of casual violence that people tend to ignore as long as it doesn't happen to them. Whether or not you think raising a wider cultural issue is worth it, is entirely up to you. It was the editors call though, and I can see why they went for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted December 4, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2012 It also very much depends how quickly the train was going. Given that the engine usually stops way past the platform, it was no doubt still going at a fair lick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted December 4, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well, you could argue that it is in bad taste, but I'd argue it says something important about this kind of casual violence that people tend to ignore as long as it doesn't happen to them. Whether or not you think raising a wider cultural issue is worth it, is entirely up to you. It was the editors call though, and I can see why they went for it. I can see why they did it, but I can also see that it is in bad taste and completely ignores how his family will have felt in seeing it. I'm undecided on it tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted December 4, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2012 Shouldn't it be "Pushed onto the subway track"? Yes it should. Not even Americans can defend that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 4, 2012 Maybe after he was on the subway track, somebody jumped down and pushed him. And then escaped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm not sure what's worse; that they published the picture, or that thanks to the ice rink thread all I can see is an angry face on the train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts