General News Discussion

[Ed209]

Where is the HARD fact that the couple are against immigrants?

[eFestivals]

Where is the HARD fact that the couple are against immigrants?

which party do they support?

It's a party with just two policies - leaving the EU and that immigrants are spoiling the UK.

My mistake, they are only against the EU.

Edited November 26, 2012 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

which party do they support?

It's a party with just two policies - leaving the EU and that immigrants are spoiling the UK.

My mistake, they are only against the EU.

[windy_miller]

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.

[eFestivals]

There is some weak evidence to suggest they support further controls over immigration.

and why might they support controls over immigration?

Just about every possible reason to that is racist, because it works on the basis that some people have a greater right than other people.

[Ed209]

which party do they support?

It's a party with just two policies - leaving the EU and that immigrants are spoiling the UK.

My mistake, they are only against the EU.

[eFestivals]

That is one of the least HARD facts I have ever seen. What you've done there is put 2 and 2 together to make 5 (like you have done in several other posts in this thread). You have never met these people, you have never asked them their views on immigration, you have just made some wide sweeping assumption.

You have had a go at other people on this board in the past for making generalizations based on race, religion etc, and now you are doing exactly the same thing.

OK, it's not a certain fact. But the likelihood of that being true is very very strong, given the political party they support.

It's a bit like presuming that a tory voter party member is an anti-capitalist - ridiculous.

Edited November 26, 2012 by eFestivals

[Rufus Gwertigan]

The council said it was a mistake to let those kids be with those carers in the first place. It's normal to try and match kids with suitable carers, and the idea of not putting certain kids with certain adults is (quite expectedly) routine.

[Ed209]

OK, it's not a certain fact.

[eFestivals]

So the world of child protection should operate on the basis of assumption and not fact ? Scary point of view in my opinion.

It's working from a fact - their UKIP membership.

That gets to mean that at the very least their views on immigration should be looked into further if they're going to be caring for immigrant children.

Which should be primary, the protection of the child or the protection of this couple's feelings?

Do also bear in mind that just last week we had a cabinet minister make quite a rant about the need to take many more children into the care system, as protection for those children from things that they need protecting from. Bear in mind where the benefit of doubt is deemed to lie since the case of Baby P. Bear in mind that there are very clear rules off the back of laws about racism within our society.

These are not children being taken from their parents into the care system, these are kids that were already within the care system.

No one is suggesting that this couple cannot foster, they are suggesting.that those children being fostered within that environment might not be a good thing, and the children have been put first while that issue is looked into.

It's not simply the case of asking those foster carers what their views are. They have clear views in a certain direction, and it's unlikely that that would admit themselves as racist if they were racist (and half the time, the racists think they're reasonable non-racists anyway, don't forget).

[abdoujaparov]

it's interesting that Cameron criticised the decision...the same Cameron who described UKIP as "closet racists"

cant have it both ways, surely?

[lost]

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.

[eFestivals]

they have been anti-eu and so a racist party as defined by you.

erm .... you appear to be getting ever so slightly muddled.

[eFestivals]

You just said you can't draw facts from that....

I never said anything like it.

[eFestivals]

This council has als stated that it is happy for this "racist" couple to have other children...

You couldn't make it up....

There are good reasons to think they might be anti-immigrant, and yet were being given the care of immigrant children. What part of them perhaps not being suitable to care for those specific children are you failing to grasp?

As soon as have the idea that the children's care should be paramount, it cannot be anything but right to remove those children from those carers until more is known.

[kaosmark2]

This council has als stated that it is happy for this "racist" couple to have other children...

You couldn't make it up....

[eFestivals]

If they are racist, they're not suitable to foster any children, regardless of the children's race. If they aren't, then they should be allowed to foster any.

don't you think that people with strong anti-immigrant views risk (emotionally) harming the children of immigrants if they were to have the full time care of those children?

Children get placed with foster carers for the care AND security they provide. If, in some parts of their life, those carers are suggesting to the children in their care and under their influence that those children do not have a secure future then it is likely to be harmful to those children.

If you are putting the children's care as paramount and know there is that risk of harm then surely you remove those children from that known risk of harm?

[eFestivals]

We have already tackled your deeply flawed assumptions to the point you started to see sense.

are there not good reasons to think that UKIP members are likely to be anti-immigration, then?

Given that UKIP's major political platform is about being anti-immigrant and that couple are members, it's certainly within the bounds of sense and reason to think they might be anti-immigrant.

Can you not see that that is of importance if they're being given the care of immigrant children?

[grumpyhack]

Can you be partly racist - i.e. have racist feelings towards people of some backgrounds but not others - and not be a complete racist? I don't think so.

[kaosmark2]

don't you think that people with strong anti-immigrant views risk (emotionally) harming the children of immigrants if they were to have the full time care of those children?

Children get placed with foster carers for the care AND security they provide. If, in some parts of their life, those carers are suggesting to the children in their care and under their influence that those children do not have a secure future then it is likely to be harmful to those children.

If you are putting the children's care as paramount and know there is that risk of harm then surely you remove those children from that known risk of harm?

[eFestivals]

I don't think UKIP membership is sufficient to declare them definitely unsuitable parents, but if they are unsuitable foster parents for immigrant children, they are unsuitable foster parents for all children.

two points:-

I don't think anyone has declared them definitely unsuitable parents because of their UKIP membership, just that there's a doubt about how they might specifically foster care for immigrant children, or how thir views might impact on those children - and if you put the children first (the first rule of the UK's care system, don't forget!) then you remove the children until you find out (and finding out is more than just asking them, as I said above).

I don't think that having anti-immigrant views does by default make them unsuitable to foster any children, just the children of immigrants. Them having anti-immigrant views is likely to make an immigrant child feel insecure about that environment; it would not have that effect on 'British' children.

Everyone has views of some sort, and not all of them are savoury to all others. I don't see this as being about "they're not allowed to have that view" but about how them having that view specifically impacts onto a child who has been placed within their care.

[kaosmark2]

two points:-

I don't think anyone has declared them definitely unsuitable parents because of their UKIP membership, just that there's a doubt about how they might specifically foster care for immigrant children, or how thir views might impact on those children - and if you put the children first (the first rule of the UK's care system, don't forget!) then you remove the children until you find out (and finding out is more than just asking them, as I said above).

I don't think that having anti-immigrant views does by default make them unsuitable to foster any children, just the children of immigrants. Them having anti-immigrant views is likely to make an immigrant child feel insecure about that environment; it would not have that effect on 'British' children.

Everyone has views of some sort, and not all of them are savoury to all others. I don't see this as being about "they're not allowed to have that view" but about how them having that view specifically impacts onto a child who has been placed within their care.

[eFestivals]

And having that doubt is reasonable. It casts doubt on the initial screening process, but I don't have a problem with having that doubt and checking up on things.

yup, I agree that any cock-up is in the initial screening process, but then again it's not necessarily something that would come up in the screening process so there's not necessarily been a cock-up. They'll always be new info that crops up along the way, and it's right from the care system's point of view that new info is acted upon if it's a cause for concern.

However, if they have been reasonable parents to the children so far (and no article I've read has suggested otherwise), the least disruptive thing to the children is to leave them with those parents but with a bit of care taken.

the children aren't necessarily likely to know the effect that is being had on them, so asking them doesn't work. And just because the children appear happy means very little - bad abuse gets to happen for a long time in some cases precisely because the kids appear happy.

Leaving the kids there in a place of possible bad consequences for them is not putting the kids first.

It is definitely horribly disruptive to take them away.

Not necessarily. It would depend on what's happened with the kids previously.

Don't forget, as foster carers it will have always been a temporary arrangement, and the kids will have known that.

If they're strong anti-immigrant views, then yes it does. If you are definitely a racist then you will create huge problems for a child by spreading such views around a British child, who will then repeat them, get in trouble at school, be confused about their friendships, possibly get alienated, etc.

True, but that's a more indirect consequence. Anti-immigrant views expressed to an immigrant child by the person responsible for caring for that child will immediately have an effect on that child, who will feel insecure about their circumstances.

As I tried to say above, I don't see this as being anything about "you're not allowed to have those views". Don't forget that it's perfectly legal for someone to have blatantly racist views - it only becomes illegal in expressing them in particular ways; and while most of us aren't that extreme in that direction, we all have views that others find unsavoury - and they have to be allowed, both within society as a whole, and within the care system.

It's not the (possible) holding of particular views in this instance that is the issue, it's the direct impact of those views on a child who has been put into that couple's care - as considered by someone who still holds the ultimate responsibility in law for that child's welfare.

It's me saying that racists make unsuitable parents for all children ...

While I agree, it's something that we as a society can't act against unless we start drawing up a list of attributes that *any* parent or carer must have.

I don't believe that any care-system employees would act to take from parents their own child or children on the basis that they're racist - which goes back to it not being about a "you're not allowed to have those views" thing.

This case is specifically about some children who a care-system employee has legal responsibility for, even when with a foster family - and that care-system employee is putting those children's welfare first when there has been a legitimate reason to suspect the foster couple's suitability in this particular case (because of the children being immigrants).

[lost]

As far as the press has mentioned the council acted purely on the information that this couple are members of ukip. Which as far as I can see could be for a variety of reasons, ive a friend who's signed up since it became ukip policy to roll back the smoking ban in pubs, may seem a strange reason but he's a live for the weekend type who says before he was just miserable at work now he's miserable all the time

Edited November 26, 2012 by lost

[kaosmark2]

yup, I agree that any cock-up is in the initial screening process, but then again it's not necessarily something that would come up in the screening process so there's not necessarily been a cock-up. They'll always be new info that crops up along the way, and it's right from the care system's point of view that new info is acted upon if it's a cause for concern.