Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

UKIP couple lose foster children

very suprised there is no thread on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

personally whilst i dont support ukip.. this is never grounds for removing the children..

(edited 11 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

SirMasterKey

That is rather farcical.

Reply 2

Keckers

UKIP are racist?

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while.

Reply 3

FrogInABog

Saw this story earlier; made me pretty cross. I'm surprised this is even a legally permissible basis for the removal of these children. The political opinions and beliefs of the foster parents have got nothing to do with the council, provided it doesn't lead them to mistreat or neglect the children in any way. Children in care often desparately need good foster parents, so the worst part of this is the consequences for the children who were removed. A ridiculous decision all round, that should be dealt with swiftly.

Reply 4

meenu89

Rotherham Council have acted rather foolishly here, obviously they don't know the difference between BNP and UKIP. The parents have good record and to be honest, as one must in these cases; I feel sorry for the children.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 5

Cannotbelieveit

Ridiculous, absolutely stupid by the council.

Reply 6

Jareth

Says they were former Labour voters not shocking they're from Rotherham the grooming gang capital of yorkshire.

Reply 7

Mother_Russia

Just saw this. Absolutely ridiculous.

Firstly, I don't really think that the council should really take into account the political stance the foster family hold.

Secondly, since when we're UKIP racist? Can't tell the difference between UKIP and BNP methinks?

Reply 8

TheHistoryStudent

****ing retard social workers... Hope the parents appeal/sue/take it to court and get their kids back.

Reply 9

Kerrias

I really don't understand why the children were removed. Were they subjected to racist abuse by their foster parents? Were they taught that they were inferior? Were racist values instilled in them? Did the foster parents exhibit any kind of resent towards these children because they were European immigrants? As far as we know, none of these were true. They provided a loving, safe and happy home. They weren't in any sort of danger or in any harm, emotional or physical. It doesn't make sense why they had to remove the kids. UKIP is not an extreme or racist party, they exhibit reasonably mainstream opinions on immigration and the EU. By a similar token, should a family in Scotland who support the SNP be disallowed from fostering a child born elsewhere in the UK? I really don't get it and think it is a disgraceful decision.

Reply 10

milkytea

Absolutely shocking, to be honest. I'm a europhile, and I strongly disagree with UKIP policy, but never would I dream of assuming that people weren't capable of bringing up children simply because I didn't share their political views. Although I think UKIP members are misguided, I recognise that they are not racist.

Andrew Mueller pointed out something important on twitter: some sectors of the left just assume that anybody who disagrees with them must be evil. It's a terrible example of political self-righteousness.

Politically this could turn out to be very beneficial for UKIP.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 11

acedlol

lose*

But tbh was a stupid move. Should give the children back immediately.

Reply 12

Huskaris

Absolutely outrageous. This is one of the reason that we have such a bad care system for children. Stupid social workers.

Reply 13

GottaLovePhysics! :)

Its scary to think your kids could be taken away because you have a political opinion.

Would this have happend if the parents belived in say, communism? Or a diffrent controversal view on immigration and thought there should be free immigration between countries?

Reply 14

The Gentle Giant

To be fair to them, the proper Labour party have come out and said that its not very smart and that they should reconsider their position. Considering the positiono of the children though, which relative stability and a loving relationship, this seems like something that has been destroyed which was real and valuable, and I think its disgraceful that they've ruined something that was truly real and important for both the children and the foster parents.

Reply 15

tory88

That's genuinely ridiculous. I have no support for UKIP, but to take children away because people support a legal political party is outrageous. It would be different if they'd expressed racist views, but for just supporting a party (and not even the BNP) is almost satirical.

Reply 16

Pkysam

Original post by fallen_acorns

very suprised there is no thread on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

personally whilst i dont support ukip.. this is never grounds for removing the children..

The local authority don't need "grounds for removing the children". These were children in emergency short term foster care, who were moved on to a more suitable longer term placement.

Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :)

Its scary to think your kids could be taken away because you have a political opinion.

These were not "their kids", they were someone elses kids who they were paid to look after on behalf of the local authority! Who then decided they'd rather pay someone else who they felt was a better match to the children's needs!

Some people on this thread have clearly misunderstood what has happened. Local authorities have many many possible foster families in which to place children, some of which will do in a short term emergency situation, but might not be the most ideal longer term. Hypothetically, if you have a little boy who has been badly beaten by his mother and is terrified of women, then it might be best not to place him long term with a single female foster carer.. not because she isn't a fantastic foster parent or because single women can't care for children, but because the child will be scared and is scared enough already. If you have some little polish children, who are used to speaking polish at home and eating polish food and for whom their polish background and identity is an important part of their sense of who they are, it might not be best to place them long term with a couple who believe that everyone in Britain should be "British", that we should end multiculturalism and that the children will now be told they are to be "British" and no longer Polish.

Local authorities make these kind of decisions all the time. They don't make them on the basis of what their foster parents want (who, lets remember, are being paid to do a job), or what is "fairest" on the foster parents, they make the decisions on the basis of what they feel is in the best interests of the child. That is absolutely the right basis for making those decisions.

Reply 17

Keckers

Seems like a case of not progressive liberal -> must be racist.

Reply 18

TheHistoryStudent

Original post by Pkysam

The local authority don't need "grounds for removing the children". These were children in emergency short term foster care, who were moved on to a more suitable longer term placement.

These were not "their kids", they were someone elses kids who they were paid to look after on behalf of the local authority! Who then decided they'd rather pay someone else who they felt was a better match to the children's needs!

Some people on this thread have clearly misunderstood what has happened. Local authorities have many many possible foster families in which to place children, some of which will do in a short term emergency situation, but might not be the most ideal longer term. Hypothetically, if you have a little boy who has been badly beaten by his mother and is terrified of women, then it might be best not to place him long term with a single female foster carer.. not because she isn't a fantastic foster parent or because single women can't care for children, but because the child will be scared and is scared enough already. If you have some little polish children, who are used to speaking polish at home and eating polish food and for whom their polish background and identity is an important part of their sense of who they are, it might not be best to place them long term with a couple who believe that everyone in Britain should be "British", that we should end multiculturalism and that the children will now be told they are to be "British" and no longer Polish.

Local authorities make these kind of decisions all the time. They don't make them on the basis of what their foster parents want (who, lets remember, are being paid to do a job), or what is "fairest" on the foster parents, they make the decisions on the basis of what they feel is in the best interests of the child. That is absolutely the right basis for making those decisions.

Interesting...

The thing is though, this decision is still based on a lot of assumptions is it not?

1) That UKIP is a racist party - wanting to get tough on immigration (and I've read both UKIP's web page section on it, and their 2010 manifesto on it - http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPmanifesto1304a.pdf) =/= as racism.

2) That wanting to end support for multiculturalism is racist. It really depends on how far that policy UKIP wants to take I think, but again, personally I don't see it as being racist in itself, and looking at that manifesto I linked, it doesn't seem that their ideas are too unreasonable or nutty either (for the most part)

3) That because these people support UKIP they support fully the above two, and will pass that message onto their foster children. It's all assumption based, not evidence based, and that's not a good enough reason to remove children in my view.

The clincher, I think, comes with the bolded part in your quote - essentially, how far naturalised are the children to their parent culture/nationality. There was a programme I watched a long while back (the Big Questions I think it was...) which actually discussed the issue of putting kids of different ethnicities with different foster and adoptive parents of different ethnicities, with one of the arguments against being that doing so could erode and undermine a child's identification with it's own culture and nationality.

With that argument in mind, I think it comes down to the children to make that decision, essentially, are they happy where they are? If they had no complaints about their situation, then surely the choice to remove them, based on the above argument and UKIP's stance on immigration and multiculturalism (which as I have said above I feel to be an assumption on the part of the social workers) is one made by the council who are again, only assuming that this is in the children's best interests?

Personally, for the moment, I think it is just a case of the council making a stupid decision in ignorance of a proper look at the evidence surrounding the case.