General News Discussion

[kaosmark2]

you think the council were right?

I don't see how the fact they are members of UKIP (even though its a party which I despise) has any bearing on their ability to offer the children a stable, loving home to live in.

[grumpyhack]

With a partliamentary by election in Rotherham this Thursday it will be very interesting to see how it plays out. Already a lot of Labour supporters are unhappy because an 'outsider' was parachuted in as a candidate in place of their preferred local choice.

Now UKIP get a big publicity boost and there are arguments on 'political correctness gone mad.'

[Ed209]

it's a whole can of worms...

should we let people who support the BNP (for example) have babies in the first place if we think certain 'types' are unsuitable as parents/carers? Who 'judges' what a stable loving home is? There are instances where kids are being abused, but the alternatives (a life of fostering possibly) might not be any better.... (not that that has anything to do with this case... probably...)

[Ed209]

And that article states that according to the council, the couple were doing an "exemplary" job and the kids seemed very happy, but were removed purely because of a tip off about their political party membership.

[eFestivals]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

At a time when we desperately need more foster carers I am shocked by this....

they're a coup[le who are against immigration, who are looking after immigrant kids. How the fuck is that going to make those kids feel? Unwanted.

That aside, for those people who are against immigration, you then ask why. The normal UKIP answer is that "the country is too crowded" - and that view remains in place whether immigration is stopped today or not. So that means that they also think the UK is crowded and needs to be less crowded ... which is achieved how? By expelling some of the people who are already here..... like those foster kids. Unwanted!!

Can those foster parents separate their obviously deeply held political beliefs (no one joins a political party unless their beliefs are deeply held) from their desire to care for those kids? I doubt it very much, not completely.

There are better places for those kids to be. There are better people to act as foster parents.

Edited November 26, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

UKIP don't take issue with anyones race from what I can see on their website. Am I missing something ? or is blurry links with other less desirables enough ?

You're completely correct, they don't take issue with someone's race. They hate all non-Brits equally.

They think this country is too crowded. That means that those who have already settled here via immigration are the next target on their list after they've stopped immigration.

It's surely the case that if that is not the next thing on the UKIP agenda, UKIP voters are too stupid to know what they're voting for.

[eFestivals]

you think the council were right?

yes I do. UKIP are racist, just so subtle in their racism that lots of people aren't able to see it for what it is.

I don't see how the fact they are members of UKIP (even though its a party which I despise) has any bearing on their ability to offer the children a stable, loving home to live in.

how about the fact that those people's UKIP membership says that they feel that those kids should be living in a different country and not the UK????

I cannot see how that view does not impact on those kids and make them feel unwanted and unwelcome to some extent.

[Ed209]

ukip may very well be a racist party at its core, but that doesn't mean all their members are racist, and it doesn't mean those parents were racist or doing a bad job. It should be judged on a case by case basis. Its down to the individuals involved, whether the children are happy and the parents are giving the upbringing they need and deserve. It certainly doesn't require a blanket judgement of the situation based purely on a political party membership.

[eFestivals]

ukip may very well be a racist party at its core, but that doesn't mean all their members are racist, and it doesn't mean those parents were racist or doing a bad job.

I still say that it's impossible to stop their anti-immigration views to not impact on the immigrant kids they're caring for.

A bad impact on the kids is certainly 'a bad job' to some extent.

[kaosmark2]

They could just be very stupid people rather than prejudiced. In general, I would expect UKIP members to not make suitable parents, however that doesn't mean I believe that ones who have been fostering a kid for years are automatically bad parents. It's being just as prejudiced as UKIP to assume that every single member is guaranteed to be a bad parent, even if in general it will be true.

(no one joins a political party unless their beliefs are deeply held)

[eFestivals]

Eh. I joined the Labour Party a month after the election and that was more so I could vote on the leadership than having a deeply held belief that Labour are definitely the best party to run the country. (A moderately held belief they're the least awful would be accurate)

no one would join UKIP on the same basis tho, as who their leader is has no impact in the grander scheme of things. Someone would join UKIP because they feel that there's too much immigration.

Funnily enough, when research has been done into this (far too widely) held idea that this country is too over-crowded and that immigrants cause problems, it's massively the case that people say "there's few problems in my local area, it's in <some un-namable place> that the problems exists".

The whole idea behind UKIP is one that isn't backed up by facts or by people's real experiences of immigrants..... so instead, what does that really mean about what those people think but won't say? ;lol:

[lost]

it's a whole can of worms...

should we let people who support the BNP (for example) have babies in the first place if we think certain 'types' are unsuitable as parents/carers? Who 'judges' what a stable loving home is? There are instances where kids are being abused, but the alternatives (a life of fostering possibly) might not be any better.... (not that that has anything to do with this case... probably...)

[Ed209]

The council admitted they made a mistake in matching those kids with those careres. Choosing suitable carers is routine, and presumably a good idea for most people. The council corrected the mistake.

Seems like most people would have preferred those kids to be left with unsuitable carers.

[Ed209]

I still say that it's impossible to stop their anti-immigration views to not impact on the immigrant kids they're caring for.

A bad impact on the kids is certainly 'a bad job' to some extent.

[kaosmark2]

no one would join UKIP on the same basis tho, as who their leader is has no impact in the grander scheme of things. Someone would join UKIP because they feel that there's too much immigration.

Funnily enough, when research has been done into this (far too widely) held idea that this country is too over-crowded and that immigrants cause problems, it's massively the case that people say "there's few problems in my local area, it's in <some un-namable place> that the problems exists".

The whole idea behind UKIP is one that isn't backed up by facts or by people's real experiences of immigrants..... so instead, what does that really mean about what those people think but won't say? ;lol:

[kaosmark2]

they believe its a capitalist club with immigration depressing workers wages and bargainning power.

[abdoujaparov]

Its shocking that any view on leaving the EU and restricting immigration leads some to shout racist and mean it. Its terribly mind numbing narrow view to hold.

[eFestivals]

In fact labour were anti-eu until Blair

not true.

Labour were - officially - pro-EU in the 1974 referundum.

Labour were - officially - anti-EU in the 1983 & '87 elections.

Labour returned to supporting the EU under Kinnock, and then Smith, and then Blair.

Labour, like the tories, has always had some antis, and quite high profile.

But the EU is nothing to do with UKIP's anti-immigration policy.

But hey, if you want to present a false view of history - as you do - then go right ahead.

Edited November 26, 2012 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

The reasoning from UKIP I hear is always linked to money and waste. Well Nigel on QT anyway. Every time I hear UKIP its about the use of resources so whats the problem with that.

[eFestivals]

I haven't seen anything to back this point up...

UKIP very definitely say that immigration needs to be stopped because this country is already over-crowded.

Yet stopping immigration does absolutely nothing to reduce the over-crowding they say already is in place ... so what are they going to do about the over-crowding they say exists?

It doesn't take a genius to realise how that gets to pan out in the future.

[eFestivals]

Its shocking that any view on leaving the EU and restricting immigration leads some to shout racist and mean it. Its terribly mind numbing narrow view to hold.

some of us are better at joining up the dots than others.

*WHY* do they want to restrict immigration? Because, they say, the country is already over-crowded.

Will stopping immigration address that over-crowding which (they say) is behind their want of stopping immigration? Nope.

So join up the dots and what do you get? Expulsions.

Edited November 26, 2012 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

Both...

[eFestivals]

It also doesn't take a genius to jump to possible incorrect conclusions. As you prove here.

what, so some people who say that over-crowding needs acting against and make it their political platform don't actually want to address the over-crowding they say exists? PMSL.

If they don't plan to act against the over-crowding they say exists, care to tell me why they plan to stop immigration?

Care to tell me how stopping immigration does anything about the over-crowding that they say exists?

Edited November 26, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

ok

well the problem with the "resources" argument against immigration is that it is factually incorrect - there has been significant economic benefit from historic immigration flows, and for maintaining them.

I agree that the EU is wasteful. Bureaucracies waste money, end of. But the issue with the EU is not whether the institutions are as efficient as they can be, but whether there is an economic benefit to staying in the EU and whether, out of it, we would have the same access to European and other markets as we do in it. The fact that UKIP focus on the basically irrelevant issue of bureaucratic waste shows that they either do not understand or know they would lose the wider and more relevant debate

Farange can't even manage his own tiny party without massive financial waste - funnily enough, waste that is EU funded.

[eFestivals]

So we shouldn't deal with hard facts but loosely coupled conclusions...

WOW... Truly fucked up.... This seems to have also been the basis for this councils decision as the usual suspects here.

That couple are against immigrants.

That is a HARD fact, a fact of those people's opinions.

Now, care to tell me how they care or immigrant children and nothing of their anti-immigrant views get to effect those children?

You might as well be saying that a clearly racist couple can care for black children without their racist views impacting on those children.