Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

General News Discussion


Guest Atlanteanlost

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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 by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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? :blink:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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? :blink::lol:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? blink.png

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...