Couple have foster family removed for supporting 'racist' UKIP

[MidnightFlyer]

Before we get going, some of you will know that I'm a UKIP supporter, however this is not my motivation for this thread. I read this last night with quite a sense of utter disbelief, but couldn't find it on any mainstream news website. Now the Beeb have got their teeth into it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

UKIP fostering decision 'indefensible' says Michael Gove

Education Secretary Michael Gove: "This decision is arbitrary, ideological, indefensible"

The foster parents say "no discussions" took place between them and the council prior to the children's removal.

The children - who are European migrants - were removed by social workers who accused the unnamed couple of belonging to a "racist party".

Council leader Roger Stone said it was launching an immediate investigation.

The BBC understands that the three children are all under 10 and one is a baby.

The education secretary said the "wrong decision" was made "in the wrong way for the wrong reasons".

He added that the Department for Education, under his leadership, would "ask the necessary questions" to determine what happened in this case.

Officials from the department are understood to be trying to make contact with children's services counterparts at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

Mr Gove told the BBC: "It is entirely wrong for this couple to have been treated in this way. That's why I believe we need a full explanation from the local authority as to why this decision was allowed to be taken.

'Ideological and indefensible'
"If we say you cannot foster children because you're a member of a mainstream political party or because you have views on multiculturalism then that's utterly wrong.

"This decision is arbitrary, ideological and indefensible."

The education secretary added that the government was bringing forward new laws in the Children and Families' Bill to reverse the current position, which takes into account ethnic and cultural factors when placing children for adoption.

"We want to make it clear that you should not allow ideological matters to preclude what's in the best interest of the child."

Rotherham councillor Paul Lakin, cabinet member for children, young people and families Services has ordered an immediate investigation.

He said: "Membership of a political party should not stop someone fostering children. The council takes its safeguarding responsibilities very seriously and always puts the needs of the children at the centre of that care."

[Rest of text removed for briefness]

I know a lot aren't keen on UKIP and their stance or policies, but I can't for one second believe that it is acceptable to brand them 'racist' and use it as a basis to remove a foster family. Surely if one is racist one doesn't foster three children of Eastern European origin to raise, and the party wouldn't have a black candidate standing in a bi-election coming up? It is absolutely disgraceful that something like the support for a party (one that isn't even on an extreme, like the BNP or Communist Party) can see someone having their family removed, especially with such a sweeping generalisation that is completely false.

I don't usually go around calling for heads to roll for such shenanigans (I believe other punishments are better suited), but I like Gove find this utterly indefensible, I'd quite like the person who made such a decision found and made to fully explain their actions.

Of course, with the Rotherham bi-election coming up soon, this could well give UKIP a massive boost there if the public reaction is anything to go by.

 

[Eagle]

I suspect that someone in the council has confused UKIP with the BNP. Which to any person who knows the first thing about the two parties is ridiculous.

 

[transmanche]

Surely if one is racist one doesn't adopt three children of Eastern European origin to raise

They were fostering the three children, not adopting them - quite a different situation.

Official UKIP policy is to "end the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies". That is enough to set the alarm bells ringing in the minds of the social workers - and (IMHO) quite rightly. But (and it's a big but), Social Services should have spoken to the foster parents first to establish their real views and suitability as foster parents for those children. And most importantly, once the children had been placed, they should not have been removed as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It appears that it was a decision of the social workers to remove them. If this is so, did they discuss this matter with the head of their department, noting that such a decision would surely have political ramifications. Were the council leadership made aware of what was being considered ?

Just a few random thoughts on this matter.

 

[michael769]

Both the government and Rotherham councillors are launching investigations.

Astonishingly the council's head of social services has said thatshe accepts UKIP is not racist but had to consider their policies, which to my mind is tantamount to an admission that she endorses mking decisions about children based on peoples political viewpoints.

It is hard to see how she can remain in her job, anyone who makes decicsions about children based on politics is clearly not a fit person to be involved in Social Work or child protection.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

And it seems there is a by election in Rohterham on Thursday.

 

[table38]

Joyce Thacker (Rotherham Council's "Director of Children and Young People's Services") didn't seem to make much of a convincing argument this morning on the Today program.

 

[Johnuk123]

Nobody really knows how much of this political correctness goes on within left wing councils like Rotherham.

It has probably occurred many times but the foster parents have not said anything, I doubt it's an isolated incident.

Social Service are a law to themselves, and don't seem to be accountable to anyone. Anybody who has ever had the misfortune to have to work with them will testify that they truly do live on another planet.

One thing occurs to me if the parents follow a racist political view why did they agree to take on 3 Polish children ?

The obvious next step is to remove all children from the homes of UKIP voters as they are all obviously racist.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Joyce Thacker (Rotherham Council's "Director of Children and Young People's Services") didn't seem to make much of a convincing argument this morning on the Today program.

What a car-crash of an interview especially the bit about not needing to know how her social workers voted.

Surely it is just as important if she needs to know how her foster parents are voting

 

[transmanche]

One thing occurs to me if the parents follow a racist political view why did they agree to take on 3 Polish children?

Would they have known the children were Polish before they were placed? (Remember they were fostering, not adopting the children.)

 

[michael769]

Would they have known the children were Polish before they were placed? (Remember they were fostering, not adopting the children.)

Yes they would.

 

[Johnuk123]

Would they have known the children were Polish before they were placed? (Remember they were fostering, not adopting the children.)

Yes you are told the circumstances so you can decide whether to go ahead.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It depends what kind of fostering they were doing. If emergency fostering, they may only be told a child is coming, and nothing else.

I don't agree with the decision, as UKIP IMO aren't an overtly racist party, however you do have to ask whether it is, for example, in the best interests of a ethnic child to be placed with a BNP supporting family.

 

[Johnuk123]

It depends what kind of fostering they were doing. If emergency fostering, they may only be told a child is coming, and nothing else.

I don't agree with the decision, as UKIP IMO aren't an overtly racist party, however you do have to ask whether it is, for example, in the best interests of a ethnic child to be placed with a BNP supporting family.

It wasn't emergency fostering.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

This case wasn't, but lots are, and it is misleading to state that all foster parents are informed completely before arrival.

 

[Greenback]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this unfortunate incident was due to confusion betweeen UKIP and the BNP. as suggested earlier by Eagle.

I would be surprised if many people supported what had happened. But I still think it was more likely to have been s mistake than a delibnerate, and sinister left wing plot!

 

[michael769]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this unfortunate incident was due to confusion betweeen UKIP and the BNP. as suggested earlier by Eagle.

I would be surprised if many people supported what had happened. But I still think it was more likely to have been s mistake than a delibnerate, and sinister left wing plot!

The head of Social Work has admitted that she knew the party was not racist.

 

[richw]

First I've ever hear of UKIP being racist was the BBC article I read earlier today.
I understand they want independence from Europe and to control immigration being their main policies.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/joyce-thackers-priority-find-the-whistle-blower/

Joyce Thacker has certainly got some terrible form. Incidentally Thacker’s boss at the time of the grooming scandal, the Cabinet Member Responsible for Children’s Services, was Shaun Wright – now Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire.


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

First I've ever hear of UKIP being racist was the BBC article I read earlier today.
I understand they want independence from Europe and to control immigration being their main policies.

As UKIP is now consistently polling more than the Liberals the left is getting twitchy, this incident which will go massive in my opinion has done UKIP nothing but good.

 

[Ferret]

Both the government and Rotherham councillors are launching investigations.

Astonishingly the council's head of social services has said thatshe accepts UKIP is not racist but had to consider their policies, which to my mind is tantamount to an admission that she endorses mking decisions about children based on peoples political viewpoints.

It is hard to see how she can remain in her job, anyone who makes decicsions about children based on politics is clearly not a fit person to be involved in Social Work or child protection.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

And it seems there is a by election in Rohterham on Thursday.

I must congratulate the social workers responsible for (from what I've seen) managing to unite both left and right wings of the political spectrum in condemnation of their actions here. As career moves go, I suspect this may not rank as one of the best........

 

[SS4]

From redditor submanifold (because I agree with everything they said)

We've been given a broadly one-sided "headline" argument as if it's a wide-ranging council policy. From what Thacker says it's a very specific instance where these particular children and this particular couple aren't a good match. There's also a lack of context in the reporting - she mentions longer-term background issues in respect of the council not meeting other foster children's cultural needs in the past. We don't know what these are, or what outcomes previous foster children have experienced as a result of (presumed) inaction by the council in similar circumstances.

It doesn't sound like this was a flippant box-ticking exercise - if lawyers are giving advice on the case then clearly it was a difficult decision and wasn't taken lightly. It's also worth noting that the couple aren't being prevented from fostering children altogether, and in any event these particular children were only being fostered temporarily with the couple. It's not a reflection on the couple - it's more like a reflection on some incident that the council are attempting to avoid occurring (again).

Ultimately I think the council were between a rock and a hard place, and any decision would have been the 'wrong' one to some stakeholders. Just because it offends some peoples political sensibilities doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision for these kids at this point in time. We don't have all the information and I think I'd rather trust the person whose job it is over tabloid-style its-a-black-and-white-issue outrage.

 

[radamfi]

Suppose I want to live in a more pro-public transport and more pro-cycling country than the UK, such as the Netherlands? The UKIP want to deny me that opportunity.

You might also want to look at UKIP's particularly car and road orientated policies before voting for them.

Thacker said she had been criticised in the past for not making sure cultural and ethnic needs were met. So she might have overcompensated in a similar way to the BBC went too far in reporting the allegations against McAlpine after screwing up by ignoring the Saville issue previously.

 

[SS4]

Is this really the Department for Education's purview?

Meanwhile on Thursday: Academies programme £1bn over budget, says watchdog. They met that £1bn from their budget but that means someone lost out, presumably the poor. Congratulations Gove, you've convinced the sheep to look away from your continual failures.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also OP may want to edit misleading title. The party is being described as racist, not the couple.

 

[Ferret]

Suppose I want to live in a more pro-public transport and more pro-cycling country than the UK, such as the Netherlands? The UKIP want to deny me that opportunity.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the matter at hand - namely the ability of those people to look after children. Political views should not come into it - I find some Tory policies objectionable, I find some Labour policies objectionable - it doesn't mean that I think members of either party aren't fit to provide a stable home for children.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

From redditor submanifold (because I agree with everything they said)

That's OK and I respect that view, however how does that excuse the social worker branding a whole party racist, when it quite clearly isn't?

 

[Ferret]

That's OK and I respect that view, however how does that excuse the social worker branding a whole party racist, when it quite clearly isn't?

Yes, I thought this country had moved on from believing that questioning policy on immigration was 'racist' because the lefties said so. Obviously not...

 

[Butts]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this unfortunate incident was due to confusion betweeen UKIP and the BNP. as suggested earlier by Eagle.

I would be surprised if many people supported what had happened. But I still think it was more likely to have been s mistake than a delibnerate, and sinister left wing plot!

If the BNP is an official mainstream party in the UK with elected representatives why should it be discriminated against with regard to fostering of children ?

To my way of thinking that is tangible to social engineering of the worst sort.

Someones politics should not preclude them from participating in this matter.

 

[WestCoast]

If the BNP is an official mainstream party in the UK with elected representatives why should it be discriminated against with regard to fostering of children ?

To my way of thinking that is tangible to social engineering of the worst sort.

Someones politics should not preclude them from participating in this matter.

The BNP have extreme views on ethnicity and 'repatriation', what happens when the person fostering refuses to take on a non-white child for that reason alone? Is that their right, or is that racist?

There's a strong argument to say that the BNP is only tolerated because it can be observed at an official level, rather than having to deal with an underground movement.

Suppose I want to live in a more pro-public transport and more pro-cycling country than the UK, such as the Netherlands? The UKIP want to deny me that opportunity.

You might also want to look at UKIP's particularly car and road orientated policies before voting for them.

UKIP isn't a racist party, and I do actually agree with about 40-50% of what Farage has to say (mainly about flawed EU systems). However, they do often reveal their xenophobic and arrogant viewpoints (e.g. Farage banging on about Belgium being a 'non-country'). Plus, I could never see a complete divorce from Europe being a good thing for the UK or the rest of Europe - and especially not for UK citizens working in Europe. That's just my view, and aside from the point.

 

[radamfi]

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1499-immigration-ukip-policy

says

"Ensure all EU citizens who came to Britain after 1 January 2004 are treated in the same way as citizens from other countries (unless entitled to ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’)."

To me this is effectively repatriation of EU migrants and therefore not much better than the BNP. Most people from the rest of the EU do not bother applying for leave to remain as they don't need to. So arguably they would be more likely to be deported than immigrants from outside the EU as many immigrants from outside the EU would have leave to remain.

 

[Greenback]

If the BNP is an official mainstream party in the UK with elected representatives why should it be discriminated against with regard to fostering of children ?

To my way of thinking that is tangible to social engineering of the worst sort.

Someones politics should not preclude them from participating in this matter.

I didn't say that it should, nor that it is. i merely think that there ha sbeen confusion in the minds of employees between the two, rightly or wrongly. I don't think that the majority of citizens view the two parties in the same way, but a few may find, wrongly, little distinction between them.

 

[WestCoast]

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1499-immigration-ukip-policy

says

"Ensure all EU citizens who came to Britain after 1 January 2004 are treated in the same way as citizens from other countries (unless entitled to ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’)."

To me this is effectively repatriation of EU migrants and therefore not much better than the BNP. Most people from the rest of the EU do not bother applying for leave to remain as they don't need to. So arguably they would be more likely to be deported than immigrants from outside the EU as many immigrants from outside the EU would have leave to remain.

1 January 2004 is interestingly the date from which citizens of the new EU countries at that time, such as Poland and Latvia, could live and work freely in Britain (although other EU states like Germany delayed that right until this year). Obviously not a coincidence!

 

[tbtc]

These are kids of an Eastern European background.

Rotherham Council have previously been criticised by a judge for not representing the kids background (at a previous fostering?)

As well as their well known policies, UKIP apparently have some strong views on "multiculturalism"

In the circumstances I can understand the Council's decision - if you want to blame anyone blame the judge - the council appear to be second guessing judicial opinion.

I agree that this story seems pretty daft, and I'm not defending the council, but if they've been criticised in the past by a judge for not putting these kids with a family that encourages the kids to learn of their eastern european heritage and find that they are being put with a family who believe in ending multiculturalism, I can see why someone has put two and two together.

Obviously we'll see dozens of headlines about "political correctness gone mad" and the usual eye rolling/ tutting etc - the facts appear to be a little more complicated (though I think that the council should have assessed the couple on how they looked after the kids more than the views of Nigel Farrage).