Couple have foster family removed for supporting 'racist' UKIP

table38 said:

Feel free to dismiss my argument and call me names

Click to expand...

I didn't call you names... I said you were naive.

transmanche said:

[The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries. telegraph.co.uk

Click to expand...

IF the social worker said that then they are liars and should be sacked.

Nigel Farage hates Europeans so much he married a German.

Johnuk123 said:

IF the social worker said that then they are liars and should be sacked.

Click to expand...

Strange that, seeing as it's official UKIP policy.

"Ensure all EU citizens who came to Britain after 1 January 2004 are treated in the same way as citizens from other countries"

Dressed up nicely, so as not to alarm people. But what it means is that nearly all EU citizens who arrived after 1 Jan 2004 will be kicked out.

transmanche said:

Strange that, seeing as it's official UKIP policy.

"Ensure all EU citizens who came to Britain after 1 January 2004 are treated in the same way as citizens from other countries"

Dressed up nicely, so as not to alarm people. But what it means is that nearly all EU citizens who arrived after 1 Jan 2004 will be kicked out.

Click to expand...

It isn't official UKIP policy to forcibly deport ALL European citizens.

Johnuk123 said:

It isn't official UKIP policy to forcibly deport ALL European citizens.

Click to expand...

Ah splitting hairs, eh?

Johnuk123 said:

IF the social worker said that then they are liars and should be sacked.

Nigel Farage hates Europeans so much he married a German.

Click to expand...

Nigel Farage MEP is not UKIP.

edit: The BNP has a few non-white members (Indian Sikhs iirc). Does that make the BNP non-racist? Granted it's not the same as Mr Farage MEP is leader of UKIP.

The scariest outcome for me is if UKIP ad the Tories strike a deal to crack down on immigration and Europe in exchange for the former supporting the latter. Being in opposition is easy, you can spout any amount of populist garbage but get in power and the boot is on the other foot.

Nigel Farage said:

"At a time of youth unemployment of 21 per cet in Britain it does not make sense to have an open door," he said. "I want people from all over the world to come and work in Britain, good skilled people who come here on work permits, not people who come here, compete for unskilled labour, qualify automatically for Job Seekers Allowance, that doesn’t make sense."

Click to expand...

Except you have to pass a habitual residence test to claim income based JSA which is decided on a case by case basis and can take weeks/months to decide. You can get contributory JSA subject to the same rules as a British citizen.

Tim Loughton said:

Being a supporter of a mainstream political party is not a deal-breaker when it comes to looking after children if it means they can have a loving family home.

Click to expand...

UKIP aren't mainstream.

Article said:

Former Labour voters

Click to expand...

AKA a ne'er do well in the eyes of the Torygraph.

Article said:

They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.

Click to expand...

(my bold)
Believing something doesn't make it true, it also doesn't make it false.

Article said:

However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.

Click to expand...

It's all Labour's fault you know, they're in league with the devil :roll:. The Labour-run council has no factual relevance but in context it's clearly an insult implying Labour are incompetent and a Tory council would have stamped this out forthwith!

Foster Mother said:

“Then one of them [social worker] said, 'Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.

Click to expand...

This is the foster mother quoting the social worker. We have no way of telling whether or not the social worker(s) said it or whether she is making it up. Confirmation bias would certainly explain her defensive attitude and her defence of UKIP.

Article said:

The wife said she told the social worker and agency official: “These kids have been loved. These kids have been treated no differently to our own children. We wouldn’t have taken these children on if we had been racist.”

Click to expand...

She does have a point here though

Article said:

The couple said they had been “stigmatised and slandered”.

Click to expand...

I'd say the exact opposite is true; they've been skilfully portrayed as martyrs, any legitimate concerns shouted down by stigmatisation of the council officials.

Perhaps none of this would have happened if children's care was given anything like the resources it needed to do it's job properly. For Labour supporters this is Tory cutbacks at fault, for Tory supporters it's Labour's mismanagement.


By the way I'd be interested to know your answer to this question

transmanche said:

Do you agree with the official UKIP policy on immigration and multiculturalism?

Click to expand...

transmanche said:

The fact that you believe a 'UK Bill of Rights' would actually give us more rights than the ECHR is sweet. Naive and misguided, but sweet.

Click to expand...

Lord Hoffmann a former Law Lord said, the Court ‘has taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of member states’ and has been ‘unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction’. , the ‘very concept of human rights is being trivialised’.

The ECHR has some 48 judges, drawn from such democratic, freedom loving, human rights protecting nations as Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Serbia and Albania. Do you really believe that judges (some who have never been judges in their own countries) should be making up new laws that our Supreme court is subservient too.

There are currently 8300 unimplemented Strasbourg judgements that other European countries have simply ignored. Italy and France has deported terrorists and ignored the court so making those countries safer.
We have the most vile and disgusting people walking the streets because of the ECHR, do you think a foreign terrorists human rights should be put above a UK citizen because that's exactly what has happened many times over.

I'm sure the 'Mother of all Parliaments' is perfectly capable of drawing up a simple Bill of Rights which will apply only to THIS country.

Only the most Pro-Europe anti-UK individual could possibly think that the UK hasn't got the brains needed to draw up such a simple thing.

We get absolutely nothing from the ECHR that we can't do ourselves.

Johnuk123 said:

There are currently 8300 unimplemented Strasbourg judgements that other European countries have simply ignored.

Click to expand...

Ah the old "well they do it so why can't we?" argument. Much like the "he started it!" argument of the schoolyard...

Just because the court doesn't give the verdict that you, the media or the government wants is no reason to throw the toys out of the pram. And yes, even suspected terrorists deserve the benefit of due process. It's what separates civilised society from the rule of terrorists. If you scrap human rights just because you don't always like the verdict, then the terrorists have won.

As Benjamin Franklin said; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

SS4 said:

By the way I'd be interested to know your answer to this question

Click to expand...

transmanche said:

Do you agree with the official UKIP policy on immigration and multiculturalism?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Much as Johnuk123 demands answers to his questions and expects others to justify their opinions, he seems remarkably reluctant to do the same himself... :roll:

transmanche said:

Ah the old "well they do it so why can't we?" argument. Much like the "he started it!" argument of the schoolyard...

Just because the court doesn't give the verdict that you, the media or the government wants is no reason to throw the toys out of the pram. And yes, even suspected terrorists deserve the benefit of due process. It's what separates civilised society from the rule of terrorists. If you scrap human rights just because you don't always like the verdict, then the terrorists have won.

As Benjamin Franklin said; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Click to expand...

I never said 'scrap human rights' I said we should have our own tailored to what WE want, not what other countries think we should have.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

transmanche said:

Ah the old "well they do it so why can't we?" argument. Much like the "he started it!" argument of the schoolyard...

Just because the court doesn't give the verdict that you, the media or the government wants is no reason to throw the toys out of the pram. And yes, even suspected terrorists deserve the benefit of due process. It's what separates civilised society from the rule of terrorists. If you scrap human rights just because you don't always like the verdict, then the terrorists have won.

As Benjamin Franklin said; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Much as Johnuk123 demands answers to his questions and expects others to justify their opinions, he seems remarkably reluctant to do the same himself... :roll:

Click to expand...

Having had a quick look at UkIP's ideas I'd say I was broadly in agreement.

I won't be repeating my earlier question to you which was did you think the couple in question were racist as you've answered it.

Johnuk123 said:

I never said 'scrap human rights' I said we should have our own tailored to what WE want, not what other countries think we should have

Click to expand...

Ah, so the ECHR - which was mainly written by British lawyers with a British lawyer and MP in charge of the drafting - is not 'British' enough for you?

I should remind you that it's the Human Rights Act (which UKIP wants to scrap) which gave British courts the power to interpret and apply the ECHR.

Johnuk123 said:

I won't be repeating my earlier question to you which was did you think the couple in question were racist as you've answered it.

Click to expand...

Well I didn't, as I said I didn't have enough information. But based on the quote in the Telegraph which I linked to in post #148, I'd say they were not aware of UKIP's stance on immigration - and that they probably would not have joined UKIP if they were aware of the policy. Based on that and other quotes in the article I think it's unlikely that they are racist.

Which only goes to prove the point I made way back in post #3.

One more question for you: Do you believe that people who a) do not believe in a multicultural Britain and b) believe that any EU citizen arriving in the UK after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed from the UK, are appropriate people to foster Polish children?

transmanche said:

Do you believe that people who a) do not believe in a multicultural Britain and b) believe that any EU citizen arriving in the UK after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed from the UK, are appropriate people to foster Polish children?

Click to expand...

I think the couple in question certainly are.

I suspect some others may not be.

As you have said all members of UKIP are closet racists you have therefore applied that slur on the Rotherham couple and a few members of this forum.

Very poor.

Johnuk123 said:

As you have said all members of UKIP are closet racists you have therefore applied that slur on the Rotherham couple and a few members of this forum.

Click to expand...

That is a blatant lie, as I said no such thing. I expect an unreserved apology.

transmanche said:

Before this thread, I viewed UKIP as a niche group with an anti-EU agenda. Full of rhetoric and somewhat 'economical with the truth'. Having read a bit more about them, I now view them as 'BNP Lite'. In fact I'm with Cameron, when he described UKIP as full of "loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists".

Click to expand...

Seems very clear to me.

Johnuk123 said:

Seems very clear to me.

Click to expand...

Ah, once again you're reading what you want to read and not actually what was written.

I expressed empathy with Cameron's point of view. That's quite a world away from saying that every single UKIP member is a racist. In fact I specifically stated in post #160 that I think it is unlikely that the foster couple are racist - based on the fact that they were unaware of UKIP's immigration policy and it seems they do not support that policy.

I'm still waiting for that apology.

Johnuk123 said:

Seems very clear to me.

Click to expand...

Saying a party is full of closet racists does not mean that all members of that party are racists, simply that there are more closet racists in that party than you would expect to find (as in "the train is full of football fans today")

transmanche said:

Ah, once again you're reading what you want to read and not actually what was written.

I expressed empathy with Cameron's point of view. That's quite a world away from saying that every single UKIP member is a racist. In fact I specifically stated in post #160 that I think it is unlikely that the foster couple are racist - based on the fact that they were unaware of UKIP's immigration policy and it seems they do not support that policy.

I'm still waiting for that apology.

Click to expand...

You said UKIP is full of loonies fruitcakes and closet racists- 'FULL OF' means FULL OF.

How on earth could that be taken any other way.

If I wrote on here that the Labour party was full of racists I would be loudly shouted down. Because it isn't true the same as UKIP isn't full of racists.

If you'd have said UKIP has some racist members that would have been nearer the truth. Every party has racists that is undeniable.

transmanche said:

One more question for you: Do you believe that people who a) do not believe in a multicultural Britain

Click to expand...

Very very poor attempt at a trap.

There is a BIG difference between supporting a multicultural Britain and supporting multiculturalism as a policy. A multicultrual Britain DOES work... or rather, it did work when it wasn't called 'multiculturalism'. It worked when people just learned to get on with each other, rather than it being state enforced. The failure of multiculturalism is down to the state ramming it down everyone's throats, rather than staying out of their business.

Former Labour Party adviser Andrew Neather admitted to the BBC and the press that between 2001-2005 the government had deliberately orchestrated mass immigration to "rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date" - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

You only need to look at recent stories where social services knowingly and deliberately covered up grooming cases in Rochdale and surprise surprise, Rotherham, through fear of being labelled racist.

David Cameron admitted last year that state multiculturalism had failed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel also said much the same.

and b) believe that any EU citizen arriving in the UK after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed from the UK, are appropriate people to foster Polish children?

Click to expand...

You (probably deliberately) missed this bit:

(unless entitled to ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’).

Click to expand...

Which they can apply for.

Lampshade said:

Very very poor attempt at a trap.

There is a BIG difference between supporting a multicultural Britain and supporting multiculturalism as a policy. A multicultrual Britain DOES work... or rather, it did work when it wasn't called 'multiculturalism'. It worked when people just learned to get on with each other, rather than it being state enforced. The failure of multiculturalism is down to the state ramming it down everyone's throats, rather than staying out of their business.

Former Labour Party adviser Andrew Neather admitted to the BBC and the press that between 2001-2005 the government had deliberately orchestrated mass immigration to "rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date" - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

You only need to look at recent stories where social services knowingly and deliberately covered up grooming cases in Rochdale and surprise surprise, Rotherham, through fear of being labelled racist.

David Cameron admitted last year that state multiculturalism had failed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel also said much the same.



You (probably deliberately) missed this bit:



Which they can apply for.

Click to expand...

Somebody talking sense for a change.

Lampshade said:

Very very poor attempt at a trap.

Click to expand...

Why? It's the same question that I answered earlier.

Lampshade said:

[On permanent leave to remain]Which they can apply for.

Click to expand...

So they have to apply to stay in the country or face the prospect of being kicked out. And what are the chances of them being granted leave to remain? Being as UKIP wants a "five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement." I'd say the chance is virtually nil. Pretending otherwise is folly.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Johnuk123 said:

You said UKIP is full of loonies fruitcakes and closet racists- 'FULL OF' means FULL OF..

Click to expand...

Once again, you are peddling falsehoods. I expressed empathy with David Cameron's statement. I most certainly did not say that every single member of UKIP is a racist.

Do the decent thing. Just admit that you made a mistake and apologise.

transmanche said:

Why? It's the same question that I answered earlier.
So they have to apply to stay in the country or face the prospect of being kicked out. And what are the chances of them being granted leave to remain? Being as UKIP wants a "five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement." I'd say the chance is virtually nil. Pretending otherwise is folly.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once again, you are peddling falsehoods. I expressed empathy with David Cameron's statement. I most certainly did not say that every single member of UKIP is a racist.

Do the decent thing. Just admit that you made a mistake and apologise.

Click to expand...

Blimey you never know when it would be wise to just leave it.

transmanche said:

Why? It's the same question that I answered earlier.

Click to expand...

You were asking about people who do not believe in a multicultural Britain rather than people who do not support multicultralism as state policy.

Johnuk123 said:

Blimey you never know when it would be wise to just leave it.

Click to expand...

You have published and repeated a lie. Whether that's out of malice or lack of comprehension, I don't know. Either way, you've had ample opportunity to 'man-up' and apologise, but have chosen not to do so.

I'm sure people will draw their own conclusions about you.

transmanche said:

You have published and repeated a lie. Whether that's out of malice or lack of comprehension, I don't know. Either way, you've had ample opportunity to 'man-up' and apologise, but have chosen not to do so.

I'm sure people will draw their own conclusions about you.

Click to expand...

I haven't published a lie at all, you knew exactly what you were saying you are back-tracking like crazy.

I defy anybody to read 'UKIP is full of closet racists' and take that statement as anything other that it's a racist party.

Perhaps you'd like to state what percentage of the membership is racist then, would that be easier.

This thread is now just descending into arguments and I think most points have already been debated to death now. As such, I am going to lock this topic.