Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:39 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Well Labour have criticised the decision too.

Of course they have, they will all be running as fast as they can to distance themselves from the story rather than (for instance) asking a reporter for the full facts when they ring for a soundbite.

"What do you think of this situation >"
"I don't know, you're the first one to tell me about it, what facts have you got"
"None yet"
"Well lets both go away and let the judiciary deal with it then eh ?"

Common sense politics, it'll never catch on while people want instant reaction news.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:44 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Membership of UKIP just by itself shouldn't be a barrier.

The argument is that UKIP is against multiculturalism. If the fosterers share that view then it doesn't seem right that they should foster children from an ethnic minority background.

But UKIP is known overwhelmingly for its opposition to the UK's membership of the EU. It may be that the fosterers share that opposition and have joined UKIP solely for that reason. Opposition to the UK's membership of the EU shouldn't in iself disbar them from fostering children from an ethnic minority background. Many political parties have fringe policies that their members do not all share, or even know about.

If the Council had sat down with the fosterers and discussed their views on muticulturalism before reaching this decision then fair enough. But they shouldn't make the decision solely on the fact that they're members of UKIP.

You really believe this clap trap?

So a host of kids should go without a potential foster parent because they don't embrace multi-culturism to the hilt!!

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:22 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You really believe this clap trap?

So a host of kids should go without a potential foster parent because they don't embrace multi-culturism to the hilt!!

No, it was potentially a bit more complicated than that.

The kids themselves were from immigrant parents.

In a purely hypothetical case (because the truth has not outed yet), would you place the children of immigrants into a foster home where (hypothetically) the foster parents are opposed to immigration, would that not make a mockery of the whole fostering system that no regard is made to placing children into homes of at the least "neutral" beliefs and culture if you can't make a better match - should foster parents be permitted to express and influence children in their care towards any political, religious or cultural beliefs when those children then have to return to their natural parents at some point, short term or long term ?

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:08 am  

UKIP are not opposed to immigration though, they just want selective immigration, ie intelligent worth while types, you know, your doctors and engineers.

The are not anti europe, they are anti controlled by europe, Farage wants trade agreements, he just doesn't see the point in everything else and he believes in self governance.

They are nothing like the BNP or EDL, seems like more of the usual 'if you go against anything left wing you're a racist or batshit crazy' nonsense.

I hope they sue, and win and in all of this the people that matter (the children) are given an arrangement that makes them happy.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:27 am  

none of the news reports I've seen have asked how the kids feel about it. A bit odd.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:13 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

... should foster parents be permitted to express and influence children in their care towards any political, religious or cultural beliefs when those children then have to return to their natural parents at some point, short term or long term ?

This is really asking the impossible, though, since (for example) I expect that very many foster parents have religious beliefs and would see it as not possible to care for a child without doing it the way of that particular religion. Are you seriously suggesting that (say) Mormon foster parents would make a point of completely isolating the child in their care from exposure to any Mormon influence?

So far as religion is concerned, a better question to me is why should ANY parents be permitted to express and influence children in their care towards their religious beliefs? Of course, it's a rhetorical question, as carers who can switch their personal views into total neutral in all things child related don't exist.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:53 am  

Amusing that Call Me Dave has had to backtack on his, ''fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists'', description of UKIP,to satisfy the public angst.

[Kosh]

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:07 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

UKIP are not opposed to immigration though, they just want selective immigration, ie intelligent worth while types, you know, your doctors and engineers.

They want a total freeze for 5 years. Seems fairly anti to me.

Horatio Yed wrote:

The are not anti europe, they are anti controlled by europe, Farage wants trade agreements, he just doesn't see the point in everything else and he believes in self governance.

We have self governance. And what makes him think that the EU will be happy to grant us all the privileges of membership with none of the responsibilities? People like Farage are living in a fantasy world.

All that said, the available information would make this seem like a daft decision. Unless there's something still to come out I can't see any justification for the removal of the children.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:19 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

This is really asking the impossible, though, since (for example) I expect that very many foster parents have religious beliefs and would see it as not possible to care for a child without doing it the way of that particular religion. Are you seriously suggesting that (say) Mormon foster parents would make a point of completely isolating the child in their care from exposure to any Mormon influence?

It probably is asking the impossible but its a strange place that we find ourselves in where the State takes legal control over the lives of children in their care and then appoints fosters to house them on their behalf whilst paying them a not inconsiderable stipend for their troubles - and having sub-contracted the daily care are also willing write off any experiences learned during that care be it religious or cultural.

Of course there are serious efforts made towards match-making fosters with children and many foster homes are very short term and made under emergency and stressful situations, on the whole it sounds as though the social workers have got it generally right on most occasions, which is why I'm prepared to wait for the whole truth to emerge from this particular situation rather than kneejerk my way through stock phrases like the politicians do.

And yes, I have a friend & his wife who foster very young children, started two or three years ago and have had a dozen or so pass through their hands, hearts of gold the pair of them.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:48 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You really believe this clap trap?

So a host of kids should go without a potential foster parent because they don't embrace multi-culturism to the hilt!!

They don't have to embrace it to the hilt. Just within their household