General News Discussion

[fred quimby]

The forth coming report hopefully give us the facts on the matter.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

times that by 2 or 3?... or more, and it's enough to not need to go to work

In no way am I suggesting it's a well paid job, and I agree, to do it for the money is the wrong reason

the person I know is doing it for the wrong reason... she's a borderline psycho

[eFestivals]

If SS first had a conversation with them and then still felt they where not suitable then I could understand it all.

as i've already pointed out, asking them doesn't remove any of the risk - people who might commit a criminal act rarely fess up that they might when asked by 'officialdom'.

But it seems purely based on the fact they where UKIP members and nothing more.

which is more than enough to create a suspicion of risk to immigrant children. Nothing further is needed for action against that possible risk to kick into action.

The kids welfare come first. Hurt feelings of the foster couple count for nothing - and nor should they. They are adults that should be able to deal with it; any impact onto the kids is something which the kids might not deal with.

The kids come first.

[fred quimby]

Going off what the couple have said they came in and said they are removing them because of their UKIP membership. Nothing more or less.

If SS first had a conversation with them and then still felt they where not suitable then I could understand it all. Although saying that the couple have said they are UKIP members because they want out of the EU not because of immigration so that would need expanding on how not wanting EU membership makes you unsuitable. But it seems purely based on the fact they where UKIP members and nothing more.

Hopefully the report will highlight more.

[lost]

so what you're saying is that no working people would every commit a crime?

I see you can't resist presenting your fantasies about this case, again ... there is no suggestion of any trickery, just a set of circumstances which have raised some doubt about the suitability of this couple to care for these particular children.

I'm pretty sure that those who mistreat kids don't have a plan to do that, it's something that happens as a result of the adults character &/or a clash with the children's character - something which there's more than enough reason to suspect might be the circumstances in this particular case.

Those suspicions are a suspicion of risks to the children. It would be neglectful of the care system to ignore that risk.

[eFestivals]

No i'm saying in this instance the idea is insane, Nusery nurse who has probably been looking after E.European kids for 10+ years, good couple with no history of abuse of children should not have flagged anything which 95% of the population would hence if Rotherham council don't investigate say drug users or alchoholics who would be more of a risk to their kids the decision is political. simples

you're not recognising the difference between kids within the care system and kids outside of it who are being monitored by the care system.

When a junkie parent is being monitored they remain with the legal responsibility for that kid.

When a kid is in care, the govt is ultimately legally responsible but thru its agents at a local level. The govt doesn't like kids dying in care because it pisses off the public who they need to vote or them. As part of absolving themselves of their ultimate responsibility, they look for a local scape-goat - just an average joe, much like you, trying to do their job to the best they can in very difficult circumstances (including too-great a caseload to do the job properly at all!) ... and all for not-great pay, and a damned-if-they-do-and-damned-if-they-don't attitude back from the public they serve.

if they get it wrong towards any single child's welfare they could find themselves in court or even jailed. There's little room for any sympathy for circumstances when a kid has died.

So they remove the kids. The kids are (in theory) then 100% safe - the care worker acted when there was a reason to question why she didn't act if things went wrong.

She's covered her arse. The kids are safe.

She's covered the law. The kids are safe.

She's covered the kids welfare. The kids are safe.

She's lessened her workload. The kids are still safe.

She's not created a whole new case that could land on her plate if she'd not acted. The kids are still safe,.

No one can question that she's working to the number one rule. Those kids are safe because she acted. There is no chance of them not being safe because she didn't act.

They can criticise her political rationale, but they can't criticise her sense of duty towards how the law and professional practice says she must act towards those kids.

You of course would go against professional practice and unnecessarily take on the risk of responsibility for those children's lives for £20k a year and being hated for everything you do.

Edited November 28, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

One phone call saying they are UKIP members (true or not - even that seems not to actually matter) is all that is needed to vent some revenge ? Sad times

it might only work if they're caring for immigrant kids, don't forget.

It is not just about them being UKIP members, it's also about the immigration status of the kids they were caring for.

[lost]

you're not recognising the difference between kids within the care system and kids outside of it who are being monitored by the care system.

[eFestivals]

Of course I am, are you saying no foster parents drink? I'm saying a foster parent who drinks is as likely to point to an alchoholic as a nursey nurse who must of had years of exposure to foreign children and is a member of UKIP is to wanting to hurt those kids.

someone who is an alcoholic is not by default a risk to their kids, while someone who is wanting to hurt the kids as you say there for the 2nd person is definitely a risk to the kids.

(I presume that's not really what you wanted to say)

They're on different cultural levels for a start (note: cultural, not political).

Drinking alcohol is considered 100% culturally normal. It is not an extreme activity within society and isn't treated as such at just about every official level. There is of course those people who take it the extreme, but it is *they* who are declared to be outside society's norms rather than the activity of drinking itself.

Putting aside how the public might vote on immigration as a single issue, UKIP are on the extremes at an official level - just remember the words of our glorious PM about them. They wish to tear up treaties we have entered into with many different friendly nations - which by itself makes them extreme.

Things at the extremes of society are treated by society as that extreme thing. UKIP has extreme views on immigration, which then might impact on to immigrant children

Call it political if you like, but nothing about it is happening because of a particular disliked political view being in the mix. It's happening because of the potential conflict of a view and the kids in care coming under that view - the clash of the idea and the specifics of those kids.

No one has suggested at all as far as I'm aware that they are unsuitable to look after any kids because they're UKIP members, only that they're perhaps not suitable to look after immigrant kids.

If it was strictly political and just about them being UKIP members then it would be being said that UKIP members are not suitable people to be foster carers, full stop.

So it is not political. It is about the clash of a political idea and those who might be the victims of that political idea.

Kids have a right to grow up feeling secure about themselves and their environment. Just as no one would think black kids would be likely to get that security from a blatant racist, these immigrant kids shouldn't have to grow up in a place that has the potential to make them feel insecure.

The foster couple's membership of UKIP is enough to do that even if they have no interest in UKIP's immigration policies. The kids will come to know that they're UKIP members, and are likely to see UKIP literature which will raise fears about what country they might be made to live in and who would care for them in that country. As kids in care, and foreign, will they then feel safe enough to even ask their carers what they do think?

There's too many angles, there's too many chances of problems, no matter what people's views and intentions. Why risk the kids to it, why risk the extra work that would come if there were problems? The plan was to move the kids on sometime anyway (as fostered kids) so move them on now and avoid the chance of any problems.

It's an easy choice. It's not a political choice.

If you think it's about politics then you really don't even understand the basics of the whole case

[lost]

someone who is an alcoholic is not by default a risk to their kids, while someone who is wanting to hurt the kids as you say there for the 2nd person is definitely a risk to the kids.

(I presume that's not really what you wanted to say)

They're on different cultural levels for a start (note: cultural, not political).

Drinking alcohol is considered 100% culturally normal. It is not an extreme activity within society and isn't treated as such at just about every official level. There is of course those people who take it the extreme, but it is *they* who are declared to be outside society's norms rather than the activity of drinking itself.

Putting aside how the public might vote on immigration as a single issue, UKIP are on the extremes at an official level - just remember the words of our glorious PM about them. They wish to tear up treaties we have entered into with many different friendly nations - which by itself makes them extreme.

Things at the extremes of society are treated by society as that extreme thing. UKIP has extreme views on immigration, which then might impact on to immigrant children

Call it political if you like, but nothing about it is happening because of a particular disliked political view being in the mix. It's happening because of the potential conflict of a view and the kids in care coming under that view - the clash of the idea and the specifics of those kids.

No one has suggested at all as far as I'm aware that they are unsuitable to look after any kids because they're UKIP members, only that they're perhaps not suitable to look after immigrant kids.

If it was strictly political and just about them being UKIP members then it would be being said that UKIP members are not suitable people to be foster carers, full stop.

So it is not political. It is about the clash of a political idea and those who might be the victims of that political idea.

Kids have a right to grow up feeling secure about themselves and their environment. Just as no one would think black kids would be likely to get that security from a blatant racist, these immigrant kids shouldn't have to grow up in a place that has the potential to make them feel insecure.

The foster couple's membership of UKIP is enough to do that even if they have no interest in UKIP's immigration policies. The kids will come to know that they're UKIP members, and are likely to see UKIP literature which will raise fears about what country they might be made to live in and who would care for them in that country. As kids in care, and foreign, will they then feel safe enough to even ask their carers what they do think?

There's too many angles, there's too many chances of problems, no matter what people's views and intentions. Why risk the kids to it, why risk the extra work that would come if there were problems? The plan was to move the kids on sometime anyway (as fostered kids) so move them on now and avoid the chance of any problems.

It's an easy choice. It's not a political choice.

If you think it's about politics then you really don't even understand the basics of the whole case

Edited November 28, 2012 by lost

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Flawed opinion....

Not even MPs support parties entire polices let alone members,

[Ed209]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-20523950

But Michael Kiok, the chairman of the pressure group Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (Zeta), said he was going to take legal action to fight the proposed changes.

"It is unthinkable that any sexual act with an animal is punished without proof that the animal has come to any harm," he said, adding that animals are capable of showing what they do, or do not, want to do.

"We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women," Mr Kiok claimed.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ed209

[hot_ice]

always like reading the news whens there a big story, not for the big story, but to find out stuff like

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20538417

always a good time to bury bad news!

[eFestivals]

http://www.guardian....mark?CMP=twt_gu

Don't know what to say... Madness....

Outrageous, but standard practice. And people wonder why respect for the criminal justice system is lessening.

And some people say that the police don't have a culture where such things can go on so openly. They stopped being racist years ago, honest.

[LondonTom]

I dunno, the Judge is probably right on the first one, it was just idiotic and shows how he really thinks rather actually threatening anyone. (I am not saying it's acceptable but in the context of the law...)

Th 2nd one I am into two minds about, it's clearly trying to be offensive towards the other police officer...but we don't really tend to send people to jail for insulting someone..

Both should lose their jobs as police though, as it clearly shows they are either to thick for the job, not going to be impartial with regards to race or both.

[Jaybles]

* wrong thread

Edited November 30, 2012 by Jaybles

[TalkShow Bob]

Turns out that there was more to it and the kids wern't just taken away because the fosterers were members of UKIP. What a shock ... to anyone without any common sence.

[eFestivals]

Maybe you read a different article but the crux of it all (why the children where moved from this foster family) still seems to be their UKIP membership.... and not much else...

and the point of that remains the same - that they're a couple who are members of a political party who are against immigration and multiculturalism, while the children are immigrants and multicultural.

If you really still can't grasp the conflict between what the children actually are and the political beliefs of the party the foster coup;le are members of - a view which is very likely to impact on those children - then I really don't know what can be said to wise you up to the unsuitability of that foster placement.

[TalkShow Bob]

Maybe you read a different article but the crux of it all (why the children where moved from this foster family) still seems to be their UKIP membership.... and not much else...

[eFestivals]

For me you need more than something as basic as a membership of a political party to make huge assumptions about people.

Obviously you don't... Being the knee jerk reactionary you are clearly being....

and more than a person's say-so of what they might or might not do to vulnerable kids is needed to ensure those kids are safe.

You say I make an assumption about the parents, while you doing absolutely nothing different yourself - the only difference is the assumption we each make.

My assumption is the causious one, which ensures that the kids are removed from a possible place of harm.

Your assumption has no caution whatsoever, and leaves those vulnerable kids in a possible place of harm.

Now, which is of more importance? The kids' welfare, or the sensitivities of a couple of fully formed adults?

In your world I can only assume that you would rather that kids died than an adult be upset. Which qualifies you perfectly to write the call centre scripts for the many companies who now refuse to accept any criticism of that company's operations because anything which is not complimentary is considered abuse.... which makes you what Barry? Have a little think.

Edited December 3, 2012 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

Do people on here arguing with Neil think that a BNP voter shoudl be allowed to foster a ethnic minority child?

No? Then UKIP is the same principle, though with them given the benefit of the doubt more than a BNP voter

[TalkShow Bob]

^{The article I posed clearly implys that the fact that the perants didn't speak the childrens langage was the issue. What seems to have happened is a court decided that they could have other children back as their [the childrens] rights to speak their first language had been breached. The council wants the children removed from the perants perminantly and so don't want them placed back with the perants on these same grounds.}

Edited December 3, 2012 by TalkShow Bob

[eFestivals]

The reasoning for the removal seemed entirely based on the UKIP membership.

at what point do you think their UKIP membership would negatively impact on the kids?

1. never

2. at times

3. it would cause them to kill the kids

?

[eFestivals]

Its the same in this case. It shouldn't be the membership but the people....

and those people show a clear sign of possible intolerance to non-British kids who might be placed in their care.

Is the person who you choose to care for your child the one who is likely to be the most tolerate, or the one who is likely to be the most intolerant?

[zahidf]

Membership of the BNP isn't the issue in reality... The issue is the people fostering...

I would imagine that members of the BNP who sign up to some of their policies would have red warning signs flashing all over the place and wouldn't pass SS scrutiny anyway, if it was of any worth. Membership on its own isn't enough either.

Its the same in this case. It shouldn't be the membership but the people....