General News Discussion

[eFestivals]

I see no risk to the children....

then you're stupid.

Why do you think that the possibility of hostility to immigrants isn't possible at all from someone who has issues with immigrants?

[eFestivals]

No you are the stupid one. The evidence to prove this is above when you speak of facts which are nothing more than guess work, opinion and hearsay.

Do UKIP have issues with immigrants? Yes.

Are the foster carers UKIP members, thus making it likely that they have issues with immigrants? Yes.

Do you protect a child against possible harm? Not if your name is Barry Fish.

[fred quimby]

I've concentrated solely on the risk to the child.

[eFestivals]

and yet never stated what the risk was. Or have I skimed over it.

Why do you think that the possibility of hostility to immigrants isn't possible at all from someone who has issues with immigrants?

[fred quimby]

[eFestivals]

Cheers you are of course correct

exactly.

If the welfare of the child is paramount, then the child *HAS TO BE* removed from that risk of harm while the risk is fully assessed.

That's what happened. Only the stupid or unthinking say the care system got it wrong.

[fred quimby]

exactly.

If the welfare of the child is paramount, then the child *HAS TO BE* removed from that risk of harm while the risk is fully assessed.

That's what happened. Only the stupid or unthinking say the care system got it wrong.

[Ed209]

exactly.

If the welfare of the child is paramount, then the child *HAS TO BE* removed from that risk of harm while the risk is fully assessed.

That's what happened. Only the stupid or unthinking say the care system got it wrong.

[fred quimby]

bull

If these parents attitudes towards immigrants is not an issue towards the upbringing of the children, and the children are happy and love their foster parents and love the place they live in, then the childrens welfare has definitely suffered because of this action.

[eFestivals]

If these parents attitudes towards immigrants is not an issue towards the upbringing of the children, and the children are happy and love their foster parents and love the place they live in, then the childrens welfare has definitely suffered because of this action.

All very nice, but all based on "if's".

The care system has been told it's not to work on ifs, cos that's when kids end up dying (I'm not really suggesting they might have in this case). It works on certainties, and on acting when there's a doubt.

There was doubt, so they acted.

Don't you think that an evaluation process for suitability goes on with the placing of every kid? That's as all that this is, just one that is out in the open due to the fact of new information having been received after the kids had been placed.

The public does not accept the state making mistakes with children in its care or on its radar - history has proven that time after time. And each time it happens action is taken within the care system to try and ensure that there is no room for doubt over the decisions it makes. The people have spoken and govt has acted (for once).

Now some of the people say the govt shouldn't act, so it can't win. So it'll keep taking the only fully sensible line that it can, of putting the safety of the kids in its care before anything else. Which means that it cannot risk immigrant kids being placed with carers who are known to be likely to have issues with immigrants.

Edited November 27, 2012 by eFestivals

[lost]

Apparently the kids were siblings and Rotherham council has now split them up sending them to different families. You really couldn't make this shit up.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

exactly.

If the welfare of the child is paramount, then the child *HAS TO BE* removed from that risk of harm while the risk is fully assessed.

That's what happened. Only the stupid or unthinking say the care system got it wrong.

[Spindles]

Joey Barton is a dick.

[feral chile]

OK. I can see Neil's point. If the foster parents were members of a religion that prohibited homosexuality as abhorrent, and were given a gay teenager to care for, you'd expect the council to have concerns, I imagine. Because, whether meaning to or not, their views could be communicated to the child and internalised, causing psychological harm, no matter how unintentional, and no matter how much the parents cared for the child.

BUT (and Neil will hate this) - psychological research shows inconsistencies between attitude and behaviour.

http://jeffstanden.net/attitudes%20behaviour%2001.htm

[feral chile]

this couple have a long history of fostering with no issues... The only reported issue has been their membership of UKIP and that membership has been the only reasoning given so far.

Its fucking disgusting. It seems to me the children have been used as political football for someones warped dogma.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

They had those kids for 8 weeks... Years of previous fostering care... Counci said they had no previous issues over the care they offered to the previous children.

The couple today said they are members of UKIP for the sole reasoning that they agree with us leaving the EU and have no strong feelings on immigration.

Potential risk? Bollocks....

Council asked them nothing it seems on this issue. It was quite simple. UKIP support = children removed, Disgraceful stuff.

[lost]

Surprisingly though, and weirdly enough considering it's what their supporters normally bleat on about, they're not supposedly a one issue party. When you join a party, you place your backing behind each issue, and the leadership of that party. You couldn't say "I was a Nazi 'cause I liked their policies on refurbishing tennis courts, I didn't care about the racist bit."

Edited November 28, 2012 by lost

[eFestivals]

BUT (and Neil will hate this) - psychological research shows inconsistencies between attitude and behaviour.

and "inconsistencies" only gets to mean that it's impossible to second guess how they might behave towards the kids.

Which means that for the safety of the kids you have to remove them.

[eFestivals]

Apparently that is not what happened. They took one and left two until another home was found.

so they still removed the kids from possible harm, they just took a bit of time about it rather than throw the kids onto the streets.

Yeah, that's a really bad thing. Kids should be left forever in places of possible harm.

[eFestivals]

Potential risk? Bollocks....

that's the view that used to happen a lot, and kids died because of it.

Would you take a risk with your own kid's safety when there was reason to doubt that your kid might not be cared for properly?

On the presumption that you're a decent enough parent to put your child's safety as paramount, why do you think that those responsible for the safety of kids in the care system should take a different attitude?

I'm absolutely fucking shocked at the attitudes towards vulnerable kids that some are showing here - where they're happy for those kids to be left in what might be an unsafe environment.

Yes, it might turn out to be a massive over-reaction about the foster carers views - but it might not do either. Until *all* doubt is removed, put the kid's safety first!!!!

Edited November 28, 2012 by eFestivals

[Ed209]

that's the view that used to happen a lot, and kids died because of it.

Would you take a risk with your own kid's safety when there was reason to doubt that your kid might not be cared for properly?

On the presumption that you're a decent enough parent to put your child's safety as paramount, why do you think that those responsible for the safety of kids in the care system should take a different attitude?

I'm absolutely fucking shocked at the attitudes towards vulnerable kids that some are showing here - where they're happy for those kids to be left in what might be an unsafe environment.

Yes, it might turn out to be a massive over-reaction about the foster carers views - but it might not do either. Until *all* doubt is removed, put the kid's safety first!!!!

[eFestivals]

FFS UKIP membership leading to a death of a kid... God help us all...

taking risks with kids safety leads to the death of kids.

What part of that are you lacking the intelligence or factual knowledge about to not understand it??

Don't turn it into a "you don't care about vulnerable children" argument. Cheap shot. We just have differing opinions on what's best for them.

we have differing view on what is best for them, but nothing of that takes away the fact that you refuse to accept that there is a potential risk with this couple.

You think what's best for them is to leave them in places of potential risk. Your comments have said as much.

How do you know the risks more than the workers involved? Guesswork, and nothing more.

I'd prefer that kids safety was based on more than knowledge-less guesswork. And so do the public too, which is precisely why we have a system where taking a risk is beyond what is acceptable.

If someone came to the council and said "that carer is a paedo", you'd (hopefully) expect the council to act first and ask questions afterwards.

If someone comes to the council and says "those carers have issues with immigrants" and the carers are caring for immigrant kids, why shouldn't the same apply? The kids are at a potential risk, and until that risk is **properly** assessed they need to be removed from that place of potential risk.

As the Baby P case and so many other sad cases got to prove, taking risks with children's safety when they are in a place of potential risk is simply not acceptable in the public's view.

And what is a proper assessment? Do you go to a an alleged paedo and ask "are you a paedo?" and accept an answer of 'no' and leave the kids there? Same applies in this case.

I will not condemn the council for putting the kids safety and welfare before this couple's feelings, just as I wouldn't condemn the council for acting against an alleged paedo. Because if I start to dismiss what are clear risks, I have no grounds for criticising when risks are taken and kids die.

You only have an argument if you believe there are no risks. Care to tell me how you've reached the belief that there's no risks to the kids in this case?

[5co77ie]

If someone comes to the council and says "those carers have issues with immigrants" and the carers are caring for immigrant kids, why shouldn't the same apply? The kids are at a potential risk, and until that risk is **properly** assessed they need to be removed from that place of potential risk.

[eFestivals]

Can you ever remove all doubt ? Is there a perfect parent ?

you cannot remove all doubt.

But that is a different thing entirely to there being reasons for doubt. In this case there are good reasons for doubt.

Note that it's "doubt", a good reason to think that there *might* be a risk. Nothing I've said is based on a belief that the kids will be harmed, only that there are reasons to think there *might* be a risk that they'll be harmed

Would you put a black child into the care of a blatant racist who felt all blacks were subhuman scum? Of course not (at least, that's my hope). It's possible that this couple would act in the same way; perhaps not very likely, BUT WE DO NOT KNOW!!!!!

You can't ask them and get an answer you can trust, unless you can also ask an alleged paedo and trust their answer.

[eFestivals]

Only thing I am sure of is we all give a dam about vulnerable children. I am concerned because I think this has had a negative effect on vulnerable children and I think it has a potential to hurt a lot more vulnerable children.

We need more good foster careers like this couple not less.

PMSL - you have said they are "good" carers. :lolL:

I presume that you know them personally, and have seen them care for kids of all races in all situations, and know that their methods cannot be faulted (even tho, like any parent, they might sometimes get things wrong).

No? Oh.

So you're quite happy to presume they're good carers and will wait until there's a hurt child to find out your error?