Social services remove children because parents are members of UKIP

[Oscar Namechange]

BBC News - UKIP couple have foster children removed from care

What a disgusting, appalling abuse of power.

[Bruv]

Michael Gove said.................

"Rotherham Council have made the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

I have to agree.

[Oscar Namechange]

It's appalling.

On one hand we have social service failing children such as Baby P and Victoria Climbie , then this.

They said on the news tonight It looks like the decision was down to Individual social workers.... they should be sacked....

[Bruv]

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I have every sympathy with them, they have to care passionately and their passion cannot blur their judgement.

This time they have publicly got it very wrong.......but as yet.....we have only one side of a loudly reported story.

Makes me wonder if there might be more to this than meets the eye?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1411270 wrote: They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I have every sympathy with them, they have to care passionately and their passion cannot blur their judgement.

This time they have publicly got it very wrong.......but as yet.....we have only one side of a loudly reported story.

Makes me wonder if there might be more to this than meets the eye? What more can there be to a well respected couple vetted by social services to foster children and have been doing so with an Impeccable record for 7 years ?

The 3 children they removed were from eastern Europe by the way not British.

Taken from article:

Rotherham Borough Council said the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration.

It said it had to consider the "needs of the children longer term".

So, this couple take 3 non British children Into their home and foster them but because UKIP has an Immigration policy, their long term needs are at risk? FFS

[Oscar Namechange]

UKIP's Immigration policy:

End mass, uncontrolled immigration. UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a.



And ?????????????/

[Accountable]

What party do Rotherham Borough Council belong to? They seem to be the more racist, thinking that white people can't love dark people. Somebody needs to tell them that melanin doesn't affect emotion.



No, wait. Obviously it affected the emotions of Rotherham Borough Council, didn't it?

[Bryn Mawr]

The fact that this has been the centre of universal outrage shows that it is the action of idiots.

If they thought this would go unnoticed then they are living in a different world to the rest of us.

Sense will prevail - society is not (yet) as twisted as that.

[gmc]

Posted by accountable

What party do Rotherham Borough Council belong to? They seem to be the more racist, thinking that white people can't love dark people. Somebody needs to tell them that melanin doesn't affect emotion.


If they were BNP and the kids had been afro Caribbean it's doubtful it would have made the news. Racism isn't always about the colour of one's skin - the nazis didn't stuff the jews, slavs, liberals and communists in to ovens because they were the wrong colour. These weren't black kids they were white eastern European put in to the homes of people belonging to a political party openly hostile to immigration from eastern europe. Think of the nazis and their attitudes towards the slavs and gypsies and you will might get where the council is coming from. Racism in europe is not just based on colour - try asking an austrian what they think of the turks

Having said that I think they are dead wrong on this one you are not a racist if you happen to think there are too many people being allowed in to the country. Mind you our beloved prime minister is on record as calling UKIP closet racists, he's changed his tune a little.

Is it really any different from not placing the children of muslims with a christian couple or christian children with muslim foster parents? Come to that there is quite a strong possibility the children were muslim. Difference in belief doesn't make you a bad foster parent but you can see the logic and it's doubtful either of those two instances would have interested the papers.

[Oscar Namechange]

Since the Labour Party allowed mass Immigration Into the UK, I believe something rather sinister was at work.

I have been Involved with Nationalism for some years and listened to their leaders.

What is racism ? It is to hate another human being solely because of his colour, country of origin or religion. I have never met anyone In Nationalism that hates anyone for those reasons. In all cases, there has been no hate, just a sense of fairness and a concern about mass Immigration that our country can not financially sustain.

When Labour opened the floodgates Into this country, they set about Instilling something far more sinister.... ie If you dared object to the numbers entering our country then you were branded a raving racist. I have never been In any doubt this was stepped up when votes for the BNP passed one million and Nick and Andrew were returned as MEP's. The BNP was growing and It had to be stopped. The UAF and Searchlight were floundering at out-smarting them because believe It or not, Griffin had real brains In that Party. One was Jim Dowsen who raised £5 million In Party funds In just one year... another was Arthur Kemp... that's what the establishment didn't want... the BNP having the brains to out wit them and gain more votes.... and god forbid, have members returned Into Westminster.... which I believe come the next General election, will happen..

So It had to be stopped and what better way to deter the electorate than to make them feel they were racist should they dare object to the numbers entering the UK. I note that a BNP bus driver has just won a landmark victory In the European courts after they ruled he was unlawfully sacked from his job for being a member of the BNP.

I have written that because the Irony here Is that the Governments and social services have consistently been at fault for making racist decisions when It comes to placing children In foster care or adoption.

There have been too many councils to list where children of ethnic minorities are left In care despite white Christian couples being more than willing to foster or adopt them and vice versa.

It is SS's that have created this beast and now to suggest a perfectly decent couple are racist because they belong to UKIP Is staggeringly stupid.

Racism does exist In this country but not on the level SS's or our Governments will have you believe. They just want to keep Immigration at a high to secure votes In future elections while they are left to brand anyone else racist when It suits.

[Oscar Namechange]

BBC News - Changes for mixed-race adoption policy

Social workers should not delay placing a child with a suitable family of a different ethnicity, ministers say.

New adoption guidelines for England aim to break down the barriers faced by people looking to adopt children in England.

Education Secretary Michael Gove said too many were denied loving homes.

He said some of the limitations put on adopters in the past - based on sexual orientation, ethnicity and faith - was "social engineering of the worst kind".

The hypocrisy Is staggering !!!!

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1411294 wrote: Since the Labour Party allowed mass Immigration Into the UK, I believe something rather sinister was at work.

I have been Involved with Nationalism for some years and listened to their leaders.

What is racism ? It is to hate another human being solely because of his colour, country of origin or religion. I have never met anyone In Nationalism that hates anyone for those reasons. In all cases, there has been no hate, just a sense of fairness and a concern about mass Immigration that our country can not financially sustain.

When Labour opened the floodgates Into this country, they set about Instilling something far more sinister.... ie If you dared object to the numbers entering our country then you were branded a raving racist. I have never been In any doubt this was stepped up when votes for the BNP passed one million and Nick and Andrew were returned as MEP's. The BNP was growing and It had to be stopped. The UAF and Searchlight were floundering at out-smarting them because believe It or not, Griffin had real brains In that Party. One was Jim Dowsen who raised £5 million In Party funds In just one year... another was Arthur Kemp... that's what the establishment didn't want... the BNP having the brains to out wit them and gain more votes.... and god forbid, have members returned Into Westminster.... which I believe come the next General election, will happen..

So It had to be stopped and what better way to deter the electorate than to make them feel they were racist should they dare object to the numbers entering the UK. I note that a BNP bus driver has just won a landmark victory In the European courts after they ruled he was unlawfully sacked from his job for being a member of the BNP.

I have written that because the Irony here Is that the Governments and social services have consistently been at fault for making racist decisions when It comes to placing children In foster care or adoption.

There have been too many councils to list where children of ethnic minorities are left In care despite white Christian couples being more than willing to foster or adopt them and vice versa.

It is SS's that have created this beast and now to suggest a perfectly decent couple are racist because they belong to UKIP Is staggeringly stupid.

Racism does exist In this country but not on the level SS's or our Governments will have you believe. They just want to keep Immigration at a high to secure votes In future elections while they are left to brand anyone else racist when It suits.


OK, can we explore this a bit more?

I'd trace the "opening of the floodgates" to the 1962 Immigration Act which declared that citizens from independent Commonwealth countries had the right to entry into the UK. This meant that when, in 1968, Kenya deported the Asian peoples that the British had forcibly moved there over the preceding century and India closed their doors to them, Britain was obliged to accept them.

The result was that the government of the day restricted immigration to those with at least one UK born grandparent.

The first act was Macmillan (Conservative), the second Wilson (Labour).

How do you lay the blame for mass immigration at the door of Labour?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1411302 wrote: OK, can we explore this a bit more?

I'd trace the "opening of the floodgates" to the 1962 Immigration Act which declared that citizens from independent Commonwealth countries had the right to entry into the UK. This meant that when, in 1968, Kenya deported the Asian peoples that the British had forcibly moved there over the preceding century and India closed their doors to them, Britain was obliged to accept them.

The result was that the government of the day restricted immigration to those with at least one UK born grandparent.

The first act was Macmillan (Conservative), the second Wilson (Labour).

How do you lay the blame for mass immigration at the door of Labour?


The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser - Telegraph

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/MW ... _Print.pdf

[Oscar Namechange]

I'd just like to add, given I have adopted children in my family and my parents fostering children for years that fostering and adoption Is about Love. Turn It Into a political stance and the only losers will be the thousands of children In care.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1411303 wrote: The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser - Telegraph

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/MW ... _Print.pdf


Far too late in the day - mass immigration started in the 60s and was a way of life before Blair even got into politics.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1411306 wrote: Far too late in the day - mass immigration started in the 60s and was a way of life before Blair even got into politics. But the highest stats I believe was under the Blair/Brown Governments... will try to find some stats after dinner.

[Oscar Namechange]

The scale of immigration

6. Under the Labour government, 5.2 million foreign immigrants arrived in the UK while 2 million left. Thus net foreign immigration was 3.2 million while about one million British citizens emigrated in that period. Despite the recession and the introduction of the �tough� new Points Based System, net foreign immigration has remained high and has in fact increased. Net migration for 2010 was 239,000. These current levels of immigration are far higher than at any time in our history.

MigrationWatchUK

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1411308 wrote: But the highest stats I believe was under the Blair/Brown Governments... will try to find some stats after dinner.


Is it relevant? The underlying culture was already in place. Mass immigration was a tool to get workers into the country - it was a tool put into place by the Tories and, once there, it proved to be self-sustaining. The immigrants acted as a magnate to draw further immigrantion (when the Kenyan Asian crisis was followed by the Ugandan Asian crisis the majority of the Ugandan Asian followed to the same cities the Kenyans had settled in). The ups and down in the rate of immigration are less important than the root cause.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1411310 wrote: Is it relevant? The underlying culture was already in place. Mass immigration was a tool to get workers into the country - it was a tool put into place by the Tories and, once there, it proved to be self-sustaining. The immigrants acted as a magnate to draw further immigrantion (when the Kenyan Asian crisis was followed by the Ugandan Asian crisis the majority of the Ugandan Asian followed to the same cities the Kenyans had settled in). The ups and down in the rate of immigration are less important than the root cause. I don't disagree with you Bryn at all. The only Issue I have Is when we are told we are a Multi-culteral society and then children are left In care by social workers who won't place them with white Christian couples.

It works both ways... If we accept multi-culterism then social services are at fault for making placements political.... that helps breed resentment and a divide not racism as they believe.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1411311 wrote: I don't disagree with you Bryn at all. The only Issue I have Is when we are told we are a Multi-culteral society and then children are left In care by social workers who won't place them with white Christian couples.

It works both ways... If we accept multi-culterism then social services are at fault for making placements political.... that helps breed resentment and a divide not racism as they believe.


This is the action of a few misguided individuals. It is not symptomatic of society, it is not party political, it is individual stupidity.

I have not seen any support whatsoever for their action - it is not a result of multi-culturalism or a fault of Social Services as a whole, it is down to an individual failing to do his job correctly.

[Oscar Namechange]

Why can't I post ? Internal server error again ?

[Oscar Namechange]

Try again



UKIP fostering scandal: has Labour just lost the Rotherham by-election? – Telegraph Blogs

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1411322 wrote: Try again



UKIP fostering scandal: has Labour just lost the Rotherham by-election? – Telegraph Blogs


A very sad result of sloppy thinking and the influence of the press.

Labour did not start this, nor did they endorse it - I'm guessing that the headline will turn out to be wishful thinking and the electorate are far more clued up than the press give them credit for.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1411324 wrote: A very sad result of sloppy thinking and the influence of the press.

Labour did not start this, nor did they endorse it - I'm guessing that the headline will turn out to be wishful thinking and the electorate are far more clued up than the press give them credit for.


It's certainly an Irony. In 2010 Labour had a safe seat with 44.6 % while UKIP had just 5.9 % Ahead of them were the BNP at 10.4 %..... Just read tonight Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage are out In force on the streets of Rotherham...

The social workers may not have Intended this to become political but their timing Is lousey and may cost them big time.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1411328 wrote: It's certainly an Irony. In 2010 Labour had a safe seat with 44.6 % while UKIP had just 5.9 % Ahead of them were the BNP at 10.4 %..... Just read tonight Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage are out In force on the streets of Rotherham...

The social workers may not have Intended this to become political but their timing Is lousey and may cost them big time.


It's very likely to cost the social workers big time - I'd be surprised if they still have a job at the end of this.

That a political party they are unlikely to be members of should also suffer just goes to show the level of political naivety in this country.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1411354 wrote: It's very likely to cost the social workers big time - I'd be surprised if they still have a job at the end of this.

That a political party they are unlikely to be members of should also suffer just goes to show the level of political naivety in this country.


I'll post the result of the by-Election here. It will be very Interesting to see If there has been any dramatic swings.

[Oscar Namechange]

Oh no.... Now George Galloway take to the streets of Rotherham and campaigning Is alleged to have begun to get dirty.... It will If Nick Griffin clashes with Galloway on the streets... maybe even some fisticuffs.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article37705.html

[Oscar Namechange]

I've just watched an Interview on TV with the foster parents...

They said tonight that Rotherham council have told them they can continue fostering but...... only white British children

Absolutely scandalous.

Who are the racists here?

[Oscar Namechange]

Results of the Rotherham By-Election

The 2010 results were Labour had a safe seat with 44.6 % while UKIP had just 5.9 % Ahead of them were the BNP at 10.4 %

Today's results 2012



BNP 3rd in Rotherham - more votes than Tories & LibDems combined | National News | British National Party

[gmc]

Looks like labour still have a safe seat and the liberal democrats don't have a future.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1411580 wrote: Looks like labour still have a safe seat and the liberal democrats don't have a future.


I still stand by the prediction I made two years ago that the 2014 General would be a Labour landslide... more so now, with more benefit cuts etc etc.

The Lib Dem's are finished, It can only get worse but remember they do come off worst In the North of England where the BNP come In way above them In By's and council elections.

Remember also that Rotherham was home to the Asian grooming scandal as well as this foster parents UKIP outrage so the BNP do tend to come In above the Tories and Lib Dem's In those parts where there Is large communities of ethnic's.

[gmc]

oscar;1411724 wrote: I still stand by the prediction I made two years ago that the 2014 General would be a Labour landslide... more so now, with more benefit cuts etc etc.

The Lib Dem's are finished, It can only get worse but remember they do come off worst In the North of England where the BNP come In way above them In By's and council elections.

Remember also that Rotherham was home to the Asian grooming scandal as well as this foster parents UKIP outrage so the BNP do tend to come In above the Tories and Lib Dem's In those parts where there Is large communities of ethnic's.


The last time labour got a landslide they turned out to be worse the the tories it's a toss up imo as to which is worse for the country at the moment. The Scottish referendum is going to be interesting. I wouldn't like to predict the result I don't think many trust salmond but then it's not about whether salmond gets to run the country is it? The pro union side haven't yet come up with any arguments about why we should stay in the union only scare stories about how we couldn't survive outside it. If you want to annoy a scotsman tell him he isn't capable of doing something.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1411740 wrote: The last time labour got a landslide they turned out to be worse the the tories it's a toss up imo as to which is worse for the country at the moment. The Scottish referendum is going to be interesting. I wouldn't like to predict the result I don't think many trust salmond but then it's not about whether salmond gets to run the country is it? The pro union side haven't yet come up with any arguments about why we should stay in the union only scare stories about how we couldn't survive outside it. If you want to annoy a scotsman tell him he isn't capable of doing something.


Is It right that your ballot papers will only have two options, In or out ? They should add a 3rd... Can't be **cked.....

By the way, did you notice the apathy In the turn out of the Rotherham By Election? 30 something percent turn out.

[gmc]

oscar;1411742 wrote: Is It right that your ballot papers will only have two options, In or out ? They should add a 3rd... Can't be **cked.....

By the way, did you notice the apathy In the turn out of the Rotherham By Election? 30 something percent turn out.


Yes it is, thanks to cameron. The snp were floating the idea of having a third option they called devo max i.e. greater devolution but still in the union, the tories are the ones insisting on a simple yes no vote. They're also squabbling over the wording of the question on the grounds they want it to be clear to the scottish voter rather than have it phrased in such a way that favoured a yes vote. All it does it make a yes vote more likely. I'd have gone for devo max but left to all or nothing trust me I'm a tory vote no and we'll give you more powers just doesn't impress. Labour are the ones that brought in devolution as they thought it would strengthen their grip on scotland. It backfired on them.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1411765 wrote: Yes it is, thanks to cameron. The snp were floating the idea of having a third option they called devo max i.e. greater devolution but still in the union, the tories are the ones insisting on a simple yes no vote. They're also squabbling over the wording of the question on the grounds they want it to be clear to the scottish voter rather than have it phrased in such a way that favoured a yes vote. All it does it make a yes vote more likely. I'd have gone for devo max but left to all or nothing trust me I'm a tory vote no and we'll give you more powers just doesn't impress. Labour are the ones that brought in devolution as they thought it would strengthen their grip on scotland. It backfired on them.


Oh the Irony....Tory's want to set the ballots but have no vote In Scotland.... sounds about right.

[gmc]

oscar;1411794 wrote: Oh the Irony....Tory's want to set the ballots but have no vote In Scotland.... sounds about right.


An irony that totally escapes cameron. We have more pandas in Scotland than we do tory MP's and were it not for Proportional representation they would have no MSP's. Tory supporters, if there are any keep very quiet - well actually I know one would be tory MP and her supporter but they are the exception, bit like an extinct animal somebody has discovered also rather like a socialist in the labour party you're surprised to find one.