Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

I don't think it was the (elected) council that made the decision, but social services - that's what the radio said, anyway.

My guess is that social services went to the council for approval or something as certainly most / all the reports and politicans committing on it seem to be trying to pin it on the council ?

[Risso]

I can't quite make out the face. Is it Jeremy Hunt?

It's Prince George actually, you f***ing pleb!

[peterms]

It's Prince George actually, you f***ing pleb!

The mad one?

Though I suppose if anyone's mad, it's the lad who's resting his knackers on a cast iron statue on a chilly November day...

[peterms]

My guess is that social services went to the council for approval or something as certainly most / all the reports and politicans committing on it seem to be trying to pin it on the council ?

There's a byelection in Rotherham on Thursday.

I think that tells us all we need to know about the political interventions.

From the point of view of professional practice, which is admittedly far removed from the considerations of the political parties who have expressed outrage, it's really quite simple to understand.

The social workers have previously been criticised in court for failing to pay due attention to the cultural needs of children in care. These kids are from an eastern European migrant background. The policy of Ukip towards eastern European migrants is hostile. The foster parents are Ukip members. Would any other decision have been either sensible, professionally acceptable, or in keeping with the previous court case? Pretty obviously not.

I can understand the odious Farage frothing with outrage. What is worse is to see major parties undermining the social workers with their entirely cynical condemnation. It's a difficult enough job at the best of times, without these fuckwits piling it on for entirely self-interested reasons. Why would anyone want to work for such people, who will sell you down the river without a second thought, for their own temporary political advantage?

[tonyh29]

There's a byelection in Rotherham on Thursday.

I think that tells us all we need to know about the political interventions.

From the point of view of professional practice, which is admittedly far removed from the considerations of the political parties who have expressed outrage, it's really quite simple to understand.

The social workers have previously been criticised in court for failing to pay due attention to the cultural needs of children in care. These kids are from an eastern European migrant background. The policy of Ukip towards eastern European migrants is hostile. The foster parents are Ukip members. Would any other decision have been either sensible, professionally acceptable, or in keeping with the previous court case? Pretty obviously not.

That could be true we're it not for the fact the children were being well looked after , as have previous non British children that his couple have looked after

The reason given seems to have been that they voted for a "racist" party ... Using Drats definition a few posts above that would also suggest that we will be removing children from Tory voters next

I'm unaware of any "hostile" views towards European people from UKIP , not that I know ukip that well

[tonyh29]

[Awol]

I'm unaware of any "hostile" views towards European people from UKIP , not that I know ukip that well

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.

[peterms]

Yes, let's see the report and what it says. Hopefully it won't be on the same lines as the stuff swamping the internet right now (It's political correctness gorn mad!) and will focus on the specific decision made in respect of these children being placed with these foster parents.

Already we are hearing that the lefty social workers won't allow people to foster if they don't approve of their political views, and other such stuff. It would be helpful for people making these claims to produce something by way of supporting evidence. I realise this is asking a lot.

[bickster]

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.

3.1% last time it was tested nationally in 2010, that is a far more accurate guide than any single by-election especially in those of such low turnouts

As I also said, their leader Mr Farage ;-) also thinks they aren't a mainstream party yet

[Awol]

Already we are hearing that the lefty social workers won't allow people to foster if they don't approve of their political views, and other such stuff. It would be helpful for people making these claims to produce something by way of supporting evidence. I realise this is asking a lot.

From the Grud

"There was no issue over the quality of care," Thacker said, insisting the only problem with the couple was their Ukip membership and the party's stance on immigration. "We have to think about the clear statements on ending multiculturalism, for example," she said.

"These children are from EU migrant backgrounds and Ukip has very clear statements on ending multiculturalism … and I have to think about how sensitive I am being to those children."

Apparently there wasn't a problem with the seven other ethnic minority children they had previously fostered...

Just for Bickster ;-) from the same article:

On Saturday Gove said social workers had made "the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons".

"The ideology behind their decision is actively harmful to children. We should not allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families. We need more parents to foster, and to adopt. Any council which decides that supporting a mainstream UK political party disbars an individual from looking after children in care is sending a dreadful signal that will only decrease the number of loving homes available."

[peterms]

From the Grud

Apparently there wasn't a problem with the seven other ethnic minority children they had previously fostered...

It seems that social services have been emphasising that this decision is specific to these children, in this placement, at this moment.

Commentators, especially the swivel-eyed motormouth Farage, have tried to suggest that it's a blanket policy that people who support Ukip won't be allowed to foster.

This is driven by naked political manoeuvering, a few days before a by-election.

[Eames]

It seems that social services have been emphasising that this decision is specific to these children, in this placement, at this moment.

Commentators, especially the swivel-eyed motormouth Farage, have tried to suggest that it's a blanket policy that people who support Ukip won't be allowed to foster.

This is driven by naked political manoeuvering, a few days before a by-election.

Exactly. If the kids were fostered with the parents permission - they have to take into account the parents views and given UKIPs feelings on immigration, its not beyond the realms of possibility that they objected.

The rest of it is just politics. The Tories were always going to back UKIP because they don't want to piss them off too much - whilst they are a minority interest group, they are a noisy one.

[Awol]

It seems that social services have been emphasising that this decision is specific to these children, in this placement, at this moment.

Commentators, especially the swivel-eyed motormouth Farage, have tried to suggest that it's a blanket policy that people who support Ukip won't be allowed to foster.

This is driven by naked political manoeuvering, a few days before a by-election.

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.

[drat01]

Exactly. If the kids were fostered with the parents permission - they have to take into account the parents views and given UKIPs feelings on immigration, its not beyond the realms of possibility that they objected.

The rest of it is just politics. The Tories were always going to back UKIP because they don't want to piss them off too much - whilst they are a minority interest group, they are a noisy one.

Bloody hell - that is a strange way to start a Monday. Me agreeing with Eames, but there you go - I do !!

It's interesting to see UKIP supporters in this thread making this a left vs right thing also - I suppose when you do not have the full facts or are working to other agenda's that is what the press do and typically people will then see that as "fact"

What was it that "lefty" and Grud contributor Cameron said about UKIP?

Mr Cameron has previously said that Ukip members are mostly "closet racists" and Downing Street infuriated the party further by clarifying this weekend that not all Ukip members are racist.

Blimey I now agree with Cameron!

Interesting that "rent-a-quote" Fabricant is now calling for a Tory / UKIP pact :-)

[Eames]

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.

Nor will any evidence of my point of view come to light. As in this case is totally appropriate.

The council aren't going to say, "oh the parents told us they didn't fancy the kids living with the white folks" either are they?

My own political views are well known enough here for me to say that the Grud would not consider ME a true believer, so I am confident in saying that UKIP are a bunch of swivel eye'd, half arsed, racist. xenophobic old farts whose short sighted, jingoistic claptrap we could happily do without.

[Eames]

Bloody hell - that is a strange way to start a Monday. Me agreeing with Eames, but there you go - I do !!

It's interesting to see UKIP supporters in this thread making this a left vs right thing also - I suppose when you do not have the full facts or are working to other agenda's that is what the press do and typically people will then see that as "fact"

What was it that "lefty" and Grud contributor Cameron said about UKIP?

Blimey I now agree with Cameron!

you love it would lentil scoffing Commie.

[peterms]

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...

The decision is nothing to do with the by-election. The fuss made by Ukip, and the shameless stance taken by the Tories and Labour, is everything to do with it.

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.

Yes, a blanket ban is exactly what is being suggested. The comments most often being made are about membership of Ukip precluding people from fostering, rather than about the specific case. This is usually accompanied by suggestions that the staff involved must have political views or affiliations which have overridden professional practice, the legal advice received, and the comments of the court.

I imagine some of the people making these suggestions know it's not so, and are doing it for reasons of political advantage. Listening to the spluttering, incoherent indignation of some people on the radio, it is clear that others actually believe it. They have no evidence for their belief, but it's no less strong for that.

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.

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.

But of course what is happening is that people with a natural antipathy towards social workers are making them out to be some sort of childcare Gestapo.

[drat01]

So the Vice Chairman of the Tory party apparently does not speak for the Tory party :-)

No 10 said Mr Fabricant "did not speak for the party on this issue.... the safest way to protect Britain's interest is to vote Conservative".

Other than having very nice hair then what does he do exactly?

[drat01]

Seems like IDS and the Tory party are really having a blinder now re the ATOS farce and the disgusting "get to work you slacker" policy. Seems that IDS told the 13 year old son of man who died only a few days after he died despite being told "he was fit for work", something that really should not have happened

Iain Duncan Smith told a boy to ‘go to the Jobcentre’ when his disabled father died a day after after being declared fit for work by the DWP. Kieran McArdle claims that the stress caused by the results of an Atos test contributed to the death of his dad, who was left half-blind and paralysed following a stroke.

When the 13 year-old wrote to IDS, however, the response from the work and pensions secretary concluded with a ’cut and paste’ invitation to make an appointment with a Jobcentre to “discuss the outcome of your father’s claim”.

Politicians - Sometime they can't help themselves through incompetence, sometimes its through ignorance, often though it's through being prats! - The nasty party mantra will be out in force again (and rightly so) - not a good few days again for failed Tory leader IDS

[Awol]

Yes, a blanket ban is exactly what is being suggested.

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'.

This is usually accompanied by suggestions that the staff involved must have political views or affiliations which have overridden professional practice, the legal advice received, and the comments of the court.

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.

I haven't seen suggestions that the parents have complained.

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.

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.

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...

But of course what is happening is that people with a natural antipathy towards social workers are making them out to be some sort of childcare Gestapo.

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.