Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:40 pm  

Kosh wrote:

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.

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.

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

It's a constant source of amusement and some amazement that those of a certain right-wing (or just plain stupid) persuasion can continually conflate the ECRH and the EU (in its various guises). I still haven't concluded whether it is through ignorance or a deliberate attempt to confuse their audience

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:06 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

It's a constant source of amusement and some amazement that those of a certain right-wing (or just plain stupid) persuasion can continually conflate the ECRH and the EU (in its various guises). I still haven't concluded whether it is through ignorance or a deliberate attempt to confuse their audience

I am a little stupid - what is the "ECRH"?

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:41 pm  

Dally wrote:

I am a little stupid - what is the "ECRH"?

Its the European Court of Rabbits and Hares.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:46 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Its the European Court of Rabbits and Hares.

Burrow hard enough and you get the answer! Thanks.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:58 am  

Kosh wrote:

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.

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.

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

The issue really is whether the fosterers share those views. it cant be taken as read that because they're a member of a political party they buy into every policy.
many parties have policies that their members do not share.

my cousin is a fosterer and a member of the labour party. nobody would suggest that she should be banned from fostering children from a middle eastern background because of that party's recent tendency to invade those countries!

[tb]

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:31 pm  

Meanwhile ... Rotherham council, whose social workers removed three children from foster parents who are members of Ukip, has repeated assurances that political party membership is not a bar to fostering. But the council's Labour leader, Roger Stone, warned that the case, which has caused a national furore in advance of a parliamentary byelection in the town on Thursday, was complex, and gave assurances that the children were "safe and in very good care". He was speaking after receiving an interim report from senior council staff into the decision, which has led to scathing criticism from the education secretary, Michael Gove. After discussing the report for some two hours, Stone said in a statement: "I am now able to set out the way forward. As we said on Saturday, membership of Ukip should not bar someone from fostering. This remains a very complex case involving legal advice relating to the decision in question, particular features of the children's background and an external agency responsible for finding and providing the foster carers concerned. source

Meanwhile ... Rotherham council, whose social workers removed three children from foster parents who are members of Ukip, has repeated assurances that political party membership is not a bar to fostering. But the council's Labour leader, Roger Stone, warned that the case, which has caused a national furore in advance of a parliamentary byelection in the town on Thursday, was complex, and gave assurances that the children were "safe and in very good care". He was speaking after receiving an interim report from senior council staff into the decision, which has led to scathing criticism from the education secretary, Michael Gove. After discussing the report for some two hours, Stone said in a statement: "I am now able to set out the way forward. As we said on Saturday, membership of Ukip should not bar someone from fostering. This remains a very complex case involving legal advice relating to the decision in question, particular features of the children's background and an external agency responsible for finding and providing the foster carers concerned. source

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:18 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

...<Farage>... wants trade agreements, he just doesn't see the point in everything else and he believes in self governance...

AFAIK, what Farage believes in is sovereignty remaining in Westminster.

"Self governance" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.
It could mean Home Rule for Yorkshire for some people.
To others, it could mean an independent Scotland.
I happen to think that Federalism is self-governance, ... see Switzerland, Australia, USA, Germany, etc. all of whom are federal and all of whom appear to be doing fine on the self-governance front.
Sure, you get anti-Washington voices in California and anti-Canberra voices in Victoria ... but you get that regardless of the configuration, just as we hear anti-Westminster voices.

Farage is a blinkered little-Englander, having jolly japes as an MEP poking fun at Johnny Foreigner whilst failing to notice that the world has changed.

Whilst I don't think he is necessarily racist, I do think he's xenophobic.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:03 pm  

I'm a foster carer and I am pretty concerned with what i'm seeing.

Suppose i best confess now 2 lads came to live at my house last December, they were massively into football, I converted them to Rugby League and they now follow Huddersfield. Show me to the gallows.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:55 pm  

tb wrote: Meanwhile ... source In other words, Rotherham have yet again made a balls up but daren't admit it (hiding behind case complexity) because they know full well that balls ups got the them into special measures and all manner of other problems previously. They really are a lousy council, particularly in the area of children's services. How come the leader still has a job?

tb wrote: Meanwhile ... source In other words, Rotherham have yet again made a balls up but daren't admit it (hiding behind case complexity) because they know full well that balls ups got the them into special measures and all manner of other problems previously. They really are a lousy council, particularly in the area of children's services. How come the leader still has a job?

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:52 am  

SaintsFan wrote: In other words, Rotherham have yet again made a balls up but daren't admit it (hiding behind case complexity) because they know full well that balls ups got the them into special measures and all manner of other problems previously. They really are a lousy council, particularly in the area of children's services. How come the leader still has a job? No, in other words: neither you nor any of the other commentators on this case have the first clue about what the real circumstances surrounding the children's removal are. And in other news: Further evidence of UKIP's policies on adoption

SaintsFan wrote: In other words, Rotherham have yet again made a balls up but daren't admit it (hiding behind case complexity) because they know full well that balls ups got the them into special measures and all manner of other problems previously. They really are a lousy council, particularly in the area of children's services. How come the leader still has a job? No, in other words: neither you nor any of the other commentators on this case have the first clue about what the real circumstances surrounding the children's removal are. And in other news: Further evidence of UKIP's policies on adoption