General News Discussion

[eFestivals]

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,

yep, it might be for a variety of reasons, but that's not of much consequence at the time of finding out,.

At the time of finding out the care system should immediately recognise that immigrant children are perhaps at a risk of harm, and that if the duty of care is to put the children first that they need to be removed from what might be a harmful environment until it can be established if it is actually harmful.

Which is what the council have done.

[lost]

yep, it might be for a variety of reasons, but that's not of much consequence at the time of finding out,.

At the time of finding out the care system should immediately recognise that immigrant children are perhaps at a risk of harm, and that if the duty of care is to put the children first that they need to be removed from what might be a harmful environment until it can be established if it is actually harmful.

Which is what the council have done.

[eFestivals]

Agreed, but the initial screening process should be as good as possible.

as good as possible would mean that people are assessed forever and never get to finish the assessment to actually care for a child.

As that would be stupid, a reasonable compromise gets arrived at where not every possible question will be asked. The reality of these things means that there will forever be holes in vetting procedure; they get amended and updated in the light of instances like this.

I was just saying that taking the kids away will definitely have a disruptive effect.

disruptive, yes - but it's something which gets weighed against the 'doing nothing' for the consequences of each. The person who makes that decision might have to also justify it in court, and perhaps even go to jail if they decide to do nothing when a known possible risk to the child existed.

Depending on what/how they're suffering, it may well be lesser than leaving them there, but it will be unpleasant, and unless there's good reason to believe leaving them there will be worse, it would be better to do so.

that's not how it can ever work in reality, because someone is having to take legal respobnsibility for something where they don't know the details.

Inevitably, such things (normally) happen with that person covering their arse - which is done by making the decision where the child is definitely not at risk from where they have been placed (and in such decisions a council care home is considered to be 100% safe).

I'm just saying that the requirements for fostering should either be absolutely universal, or absolutely related to each individual situation. Not some half-hearted mish-mash where you kinda allow racists to adopt but not in x scenario, etc.

Children are not universal, so you cannot really apply universal rules - aside from the one where the child's welfare is always put first (which has evolved as a result of the consequences of them not being put first, don't forget).

With that universal rule in place, you then look at the individual circumstances, as has happened here - does that child fit with these people as carers.

All that has happened here is that the care system has realised after (rather than before) the kids have been placed with foster carers that those foster carers might not be suitable in this instance. Mostly this assessment happens without those foster carers even knowing they've been pre-assessed like that; because it's happened afterwards here, they know about it.

Having realised that error, it's putting the kids first to reverse that error until more is known.

Given the care system hysteria of the moment I can't see how the care system could have been expected to act differently.

[eFestivals]

personally I don't want the council to know who I vote for, and I dont think they have any right to that information

which is probably why the vetting process is flawed and its led to this situation.

I agree with the sentiment ... but I still don't think the care system is doing anything wrong here, by putting the kids first when there is a chance of it being an unsuitable environment for them.

For whatever reasons they've come to know this couple's political affiliations, and that suggests that that couple might not be a suitable place to place particular kids for fostering. Until they know for sure that it is safe, they've covered their arses by removing them.

Edited November 26, 2012 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

personally I don't want the council to know who I vote for, and I dont think they have any right to that information

[eFestivals]

The concept that any child should be brought up in x,y or z culture by default is strange in itself...

What is the damage or problem with a child being originally brought up in a Pakistani culture then being brought up in a more traditional British culture.

Whats so scary about that ?

it's nothing, zilch, zero, to do with that. The damage or problem is caused when a child is brought up in a culture which is hostile to that child.

There is the possibility of that here, dependent on where the foster couple's views on immigration are exactly, and because the children are immigrants. It is about that and only that.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

So if they are "anti-immigrant" why is it OK to care for any child? Surely any child will be harmed if subjected to racist retoric ?

Given that the couple involved are both carers, one of disabled kids and one a nursery nurse, one would think that common sense would prevale. Having some knowledge about foster caring and from the information available, this move was to cover the back of the SS as they are under the spotlight of the court. It has been my experience that the SS base many of their decision on what they think rather than what is best for the family. If there were concerns over the placement why was a review meeting not called

[eFestivals]

So if they are "anti-immigrant" why is it OK to care for any child? Surely any child will be harmed if subjected to racist retoric ?

then you can extend the idea and say every potential parent should be vetted before they're allowed to have a child.

That's obviously not going to happen, so we're back in the real world - where there's a difference between a hostile environment towards a child's own background and an environment without that hostility towards that child's own background.

If there were concerns over the placement why was a review meeting not called

probably because, I'd guess, their procedures wouldn't have an immigrant child knowingly placed with foster parents known or suspected to have strong anti-immigrant or immigration beliefs of some level in the first place.

It's probably only that this has become known about that has caused the fuss. After all, if everything else were equal, we'd all surely choose to place immigrant children with foster carers who were not known to have issues with immigrants than with foster carers where there's reasons to believe that they might have issues.

[lost]

It's not who you vote for, they're registered members.

[Ed209]

No but the argument is how the council is allowed to collect that information and what they are allowed to do with it. We don't know how they found out but lets say it was a council official who was going through peoples bins to check we are recycling (something thats been documented the council do) He finds the letter which states they are members should he be able to use that information and inform social services, then maybe he goes onto the next house finds a large number of spirit bottles in the recycling or maybe half a spliff in the general rubbish again if he thinks kids are at risk from alcoholic or drug using parents should he be able to inform social services..

[eFestivals]

it was a tip off from a member of the public apparently, and they acted on it.

and that member of the public might have been honestly acting in the best interests of the child (and might even know the sorts of abhorrent things that couple may say about immigrants), or they might have been taking the piss out of some UKIP members, we don't know.

But if there's a reason for concern, it's not wrong that the care system acts firstly in the best interests of the child.

[Ed209]

Although immediately taking them away from their foster parents, uprooting the children and placing them in a brand new foster home certainly might not be in the best interest of those children.

[lost]

it was a tip off from a member of the public apparently, and they acted on it.

[t8yman]

the parents must have slipped through the net on the vetting process, or lied on their application. the application process is very thorough in our local council, and I'm guessing its indicative of most councils processes. they will have been asked directly if they have any "sensitive views" and so will everyone who stood as a referee for them. I'm not doubting they are probably marvelous parents in every other aspect, but holding strong views on immigration is a pretty big deal, and one that is unlikely not to have received further scrutiny.

its obviously a fairly unpopular situation as far as the press reaction seems to be saying, but the rights of the children take precedence in every case afaik, and rightly so...

[eFestivals]

NO ONE would disagree with this... But just saying it means nothing...

On the face of it the only evidence offered as a basis for the judgement is UKIP membership.

Was it in the best interest of the children to rip them out of this family based on such little evidence is the key question.

The decision seems to have been based on such little evidence you do have to question it.

OK, let's try it this way....

Would you be happy to leave your child in the care of someone where there are legitimate reasons to suspect that behind any nice words they might tell you they actually think something different and if those suspicions at worst are true your child is at risk of harm?

Then why would you be happy for the state to do that?

The fact that you might not agree with the rationale for why the child might be at harm is something completely aside from what the person with legal responsibility would choose to do to protect their child. You wouldn't want to risk harm to your child in circumstances where you had suspicion of a risk of harm, and that is what the state is also doing for the children it takes responsibility for.

Hopefully you have now got your head around why the childcare system felt it had to act when a risk of harm was brought to its attention.

All you need to do now is try and work out why there is that risk of harm when the fosterer is a UKIP member and the child is an immigrant. ... firstly, can you not see that someone with strong anti-immigrant views (rather than this couple, specifically) would not be the best person to care for an immigrant child?

Once you've grasped that, you should start to understand where the *risk* is with this specific couple. Note that it's "risk of harm" and not "will come to harm". Should a child be put at risk? Our state care system says not.

[Kowalski]

the parents must have slipped through the net on the vetting process, or lied on their application. the application process is very thorough in our local council, and I'm guessing its indicative of most councils processes. they will have been asked directly if they have any "sensitive views" and so will everyone who stood as a referee for them. I'm not doubting they are probably marvelous parents in every other aspect, but holding strong views on immigration is a pretty big deal, and one that is unlikely not to have received further scrutiny.

its obviously a fairly unpopular situation as far as the press reaction seems to be saying, but the rights of the children take precedence in every case afaik, and rightly so...

[eFestivals]

Although immediately taking them away from their foster parents, uprooting the children and placing them in a brand new foster home certainly might not be in the best interest of those children.

but they were in a foster home, which means that that process happens sooner or later anyway if there wasn't all this fuss.

With that context within the consideration it's hard to see where they get harmed (more than they might otherwise) by taking them away from these particular foster carers, as they get taken away from them at some point anyway.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Although immediately taking them away from their foster parents, uprooting the children and placing them in a brand new foster home certainly might not be in the best interest of those children.

[eFestivals]

Out of interest, who decides what the definition of a "sensitive view" is?

at the end of the day, it's any view which is exteme compared to the status quo.

UKIP have an extreme stance on immigration compared to the status quo. This issue gets muddled tho by the fact that UKIP's view, despite being a very long way from what the law and treaties say about immigration, is a widely held view within society - making it seem less extreme than it actually is against the status quo.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

but they were in a foster home, which means that that process happens sooner or later anyway if there wasn't all this fuss.

With that context within the consideration it's hard to see where they get harmed (more than they might otherwise) by taking them away from these particular foster carers, as they get taken away from them at some point anyway.

[eFestivals]

You keep saying ANTI-IMMIGRANT which is quite different from Anti-Immigration...

One is taking issue with a person and the other a process. Quite different things. One is scary and the other is more than acceptable.

in regard to these kids it matters not. They are IMMIGRANTS who arrived in this country via IMMIGRATION.

That means that everything about these kids has the possibility of being offensive to that couple, and so impact back on to the care that the kids receive.

Who is going to stand up and say "I will put those kids at risk of harm", then?

However you (goose:P)step around this, at the end of the day, once you know the foster carer's political affiliations and the kids immigrant status, only a fool wouldn't have concerns (however small), and to leave those kids there is to say "I am happy to take a risk I don't have to take".

Surely even you, Barry, aren't so daft as to think you'd take that risk with other people's children?

[eFestivals]

Not necessarily and constant moving of placements over a short term causes a great deal of emotional harm

oh, I know - but it's still a natural consequence of the full care system, and so ultimately one that the care system isn't going to let it stop it taking action when there's an 'outside the system' risk of harm.

It pretty much fits side by side with the idea (as it works in the law in reality) that council kids homes are 100% safe environments - because when any child in the care system has been left with a carer when people have been aware of risks but chosen to ignore or discount them and the risks turn to real harm, the fact that those kids homes aren't 100% perfect environments either will count for nothing.

Edited November 26, 2012 by eFestivals

[lost]

Not sure I see it as even an extreme view or even a "right" or "left" wing view. I've visited Canada which has a pretty strict points system and a pretty liberal society or even Iceland which has one of the strictest immigration policies in the world and yet it considered one of the most progressive societies (the best to be a woman in) a lesbian PM and a complete ban on strip clubs or any sort of sexual exploitation. There are economically right and left wing socieites both with lax and tight immigration policies.

[eFestivals]

Not sure I see it as even an extreme view or even a "right" or "left" wing view. I've visited Canada which has a pretty strict points system and a pretty liberal society or even Iceland which has one of the strictest immigration policies in the world and yet it considered one of the most progressive societies (the best to be a woman in) a lesbian PM and a complete ban on strip clubs or any sort of sexual exploitation. There are economically right and left wing socieites both with lax and tight immigration policies.

yup, I've not tried to make it a left and right thing, I've concentrated solely on the risk to the child.

The fact remains that UKIP have extreme immigration ideas compared to the immigration system this country operates, and that part cannot be got away from. It's also a fact that some of their members have stronger and more extreme views than is UKIP policy.

If I were operating the child care system in this country, as far as I'm concerned nothing of UKIP's views is of any real concern to me, until we start to talk about a UKIP member caring for an immigrant child. Then it is a concern, because those views on immigration have real potential to directly impact on the child's welfare.

[zahidf]

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/11/26/what-about-the-david-cameron-description-ukip-as-being-a-party-mostly-of-fruit-cakes-nutters-and-closet-racists/

Lot of Islamaphobia and homophobia with ukip...