Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:54 am  

Kosh wrote:

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

Considering we have services at breaking point like Hospitals, and schools oversubscribed that would indicate too many people for the current infrastructure, would a 5 year stop on free movement of people from less developed countries be such a bad thing?

Kosh wrote:

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.

Self governance to a point, an example being the prison vote, we are being told by europe that we are breaking the law, that we must change or else.
Breaking the law? So if we are self governed then can't we turn around and say 'we set this law, it's our country, everyone's happy with this situation so sod off we are not breaking OUR law'.
But we won't/can't because......?

People who said America would have a black president were told they lived in a fantasy world, i like people who stick up for something they believe in, even if it does seem too idealistic.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:53 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

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 ?

So you are saying having myopic views about immigration stops you being a good foster parent to an immigrant child? I would suggest it is way more complicated than that.

The idea that a foster parent is so bland they are not able to influence the children in their care in any shape or form is not reality. How many people have you ever met that have neutral beliefs?

It is no wonder we never find foster parents for these kids, if they cannot have religious, political, social, sexual preferences - where are these modern day saints going to come from to foster these children?

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:09 am  

Ther is an upside to all this: any parents who fancy a couple of weeks off from the kids should simply phone Social Services and tell them they've joined UKIP

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:48 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So you are saying having myopic views about immigration stops you being a good foster parent to an immigrant child? I would suggest it is way more complicated than that.

The idea that a foster parent is so bland they are not able to influence the children in their care in any shape or form is not reality. How many people have you ever met that have neutral beliefs?

It is no wonder we never find foster parents for these kids, if they cannot have religious, political, social, sexual preferences - where are these modern day saints going to come from to foster these children?

Again, its worth re-iterating that this is fostering that we are speaking of, not adoption, the two are very different.

There is a move in some regions to introduce childrens homes again, the company I work for has as a client one successful privately owned business operating in this field with several homes across its area of operation, it is privately owned and privately operated but derives its income purely from the local authorities in its region and offers a foster caring service to those authorities which is on demand and totally inclusive, once they are certified they take away all of the responsibilities on social workers to check possibly up to one hundred individual foster parents and it seems to be a thriving business.

Those are the facts, now I'm going to stray into a hypothetical question - if I told you that these homes providing this service to local authorities were funded and operated by Muslims, or Catholics, or organisations with strong anti-semitic views, or strongly opposed immigration, or held any of your choice of controversial views, would you be quite so happy in allowing them to represent the state surrogate parenting role ?

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:30 pm  

Lest we forget if you're against mass uncontrolled immigration you are a bigot http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8649012.stm

Lest we forget if you're against mass uncontrolled immigration you are a bigot http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8649012.stm

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:30 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Ther is an upside to all this: any parents who fancy a couple of weeks off from the kids should simply phone Social Services and tell them they've joined UKIP

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:34 pm  

Just reading down that article and laughed at this, after the whole 'i can't possibly sit in standard class' et all;

Shadow chancellor George Osborne said: "That's the thing about general elections, they do reveal the truth about people."

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:19 pm  

On the face of it this is a ridiculous decision by Social Services, not the Rotherham council. The council, rather than defending the decision, should have announced an internal enquiry. Although I am not a UKIP supporter (I'm a Labour member) I do not regard them as a racist organisation. They are no more racist than the right of the Tory party. If, on the other hand, the foster parents belonged to the BNP, NF or EDL who do have a racist agenda then that would be an entirely different matter.

Who knows, fostering kids from an immigrant background might have changed this couples attitude to multi-culturalism.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:37 pm  

London is supposedly multi cultural yet ask anyone who lives here or knows it well, it simply isn't.
London has little pockets of certain people, there are few if any places in which there is a mix of everyone.

Examples, just a couple but could probably do it for every part of London.
Stamford Hill, Golders Green are Jewish areas
Willesden, Harlesden black areas
Wembley, Southall Asian areas
Turnpike Lane, Palmers Green, Turkish and Greek areas.
Romford, Barking white areas

For every place in London you could label it an (x) area. That to me isn't people mixing, that isn't multi culturalism it's simply people of similar backgrounds, experiences and cultures flocking together because they share similar lives and feel comfortable with each other and understand those types of people better, therefore feel like more of a community. You can't fight nature, all animals do it, why do people think humans are any different, we have brains yes, we are the dominant species on the planet but most animals share these in built nuances, it's not racist, it's insecurity and the need to feel safe that drives this.
I love all colours and religions yet i'll be honest, i would feel like a fish out of water living in an Asian area, i'd feel like a spare part and as much as i'd like to integrate and fit in, i don't think i would.

[Kosh]

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:55 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

Considering we have services at breaking point like Hospitals, and schools oversubscribed that would indicate too many people for the current infrastructure, would a 5 year stop on free movement of people from less developed countries be such a bad thing?

They're talking about a 5 year freeze on all immigration. Have a word with any multinational business of your choice and see what they reckon to that crackpot policy. And maybe we have services 'at breaking point' due to massive swingeing cuts rather than huge numbers of immigrants?

Controlled immigration is the way forward. A total freeze is crackpottery of the highest order.

Horatio Yed wrote:

Self governance to a point, an example being the prison vote, we are being told by europe that we are breaking the law, that we must change or else.
Breaking the law? So if we are self governed then can't we turn around and say 'we set this law, it's our country, everyone's happy with this situation so sod off we are not breaking OUR law'.
But we won't/can't because......?

You might want to do some research. We are in technical breach of a treaty we voluntarily signed up to in the wake of the second world war. Even then, it's only a blanket ban on all prisoners voting regardless of individual circumstances that's been ruled illegal. And finally, the will of parliament is still sovereign and cannot be overruled. All Cameron has to do is put a genuine bill to a genuine vote. Unfortunately his somewhat intemperate comments might torpedo that one.

Horatio Yed wrote:

People who said America would have a black president were told they lived in a fantasy world, i like people who stick up for something they believe in, even if it does seem too idealistic.

We're not talking about idealism. We're talking about crackpottery. And no serious commentators ruled out a black president.