Am I getting old or are our courts really becoming a joke

[Garawa]

No Posh, I meant the spokesperson for the social services department not the council.

[Poshgill]

Agreed Gary. The Spokesperson did say that but what connection is that with Labour? Elg stated it was a decision to remove the children from the Ukip members was taken by the Labour party. That is not correct.

[Garawa]

I didn't agree with elgrande's original statement saying labour. I agreed it was a ludicrous decision.

Having read my first coment back I see the confusion. I meant I wasn't sure about there being more to it rather than not sure it wasn't the labour party.

[Elgrande]

Having listened to various debates on this it seems that the 2002 Foster / Adoption act has a lot to do with this which was brought in by Mr Blair. I just wonder if this hadn't become public would the council be quite so anti the decision? If someone can define Multi Culturalism i would be most grateful.

[Rimshot]

A simple 'sorry, I was wrong', would suffice ElGrande.

[Poshgill]

I'm not sure that the decision by Rotherham Social Services has anything to do with Multi Culturalism, it is more a misguided attempt to look after the welfare of some foster children. It appears that the couple who were fostering the children were members of Ukip. The children they were fostering were of Eastern European extraction. As Ukip is vociferously opposed to the European Community, a member of Social Services decided that that did not quite fulfil the needs of a foster family. A child needs, and has the right to grow up in an environment where they are able to value their religious background, racial origins, culture and language. Foster carers who disregard these issues will inevitably not be able to serve the very best interests of the child. I suspect (but without knowing the full details of the case) that was the reason the decison was made.

[Elgrande]

Using that as a template the amount of Foster parents will be almost zero. A Tory couple could not bring up a child from a Labour background; white British parents cannot bring up children from another racial background unless they are linguists; gay parents cannot foster / adopt children from straight backgrounds etc. As for an apology; this under the watch of a Labour authority who have back peddled a bit, but not much (the decision still stands). Imposing anyones doctrine on people is wrong, but there is no proof that happened in this case; apart from the Social services now opening a can of worms by now making your political stance part of the criteria for fostering.
As a final point if theses children come from such a culturally strong background how come no one from their community came forward to look after them?

[Garawa]

I don't think that UKIP vehemently oppose all non-white non-UK citizens, they are not the BNP! I detest them as a party but I understand why they take some of their stances. At a time when everyone has had to cut back, councils have been forced to freeze council tax and cuts are being made to our police and armed forces, the EU have built new offices and are demanding bigger budgets. It's now wonder people are angry and turn to fringe parties like UKIP. Funnily enough Cameron has said this is unreasonable and opposes it so would they have been banned had they been Tory? What's the difference? I suspect had they extreme views over European immigrants then they would be BNP members and that would be a different kettle of fish.

[Poshgill]

What a lot of old rot Elg (with the greatest of respect!) Firstly, this has nothing to do with Labour. It may well be a Labour Council, but the Social Services are not elected and are apolitical. Labour would have had absolutley no say in this matter but they can call for a review (which I believe they have done.) If the couple were able to prove that their political views would not impact on their ability to bring the children up, then I suspect that there would have been no problem. It would be the same as people from different races being fostered by whites or by kids being fostered by gay's. The fundamental thing is impartiallity and an understanding of others culturtes, creeds and religions. As I stated: A Foster carers who disregard these issues will inevitably not be able to serve the very best interests of the child.

[Robpthegills]

I think the whole thing has been blown out of total proportion by just about everybody but mostly by the Press as usual.

If I was placing children with different families I would have reservations about placing eastern european children with a family that
were members of UKIP. Not that people who vote UKIP are particularly extremist but it would just stop the clouding of any issue.

It sounds to me like the biggest mistake is in communication. How it was communicated to the family as to why they can or cannot look after the children.

Colour is irrelevant. Having a couple who will love and care for the children is all important. However if these children had been abused and treated badly and then it was released by our VILE press that the family were UKIP party members people would be baying for the head of the council for an inappropriate placing.

Truth is with todays Free Press no matter what you do is wrong.

[Garawa]

But a lot of these seems to assume that these foster parents were against certain sections of the community and yes that could impact in their fostering of some ethnic children. I believe this wasn't the case as the spokesperson confirmed the children were not in any danger. However I know many people who vote UKIP solely on the issue of the vile and wasteful EU council. If this is why they were members it bears no reference to any extreme views whatsoever and the decision was appalling.

[Elgrande]

Just seems to me that the Social services have opted for the politics of the parents as opposed to whether they are getting care and love. My point is that from now on will children only be placed with families whose politics tick the right boxes for the "apolitical" Social Services.

[Rimshot]

Elgrande you are still trying to make this a Labour party issue when it is nothing of the sort. You might just as well say it was done under a Conservative/LibDem coalition government so they must be influencing it . It's just nonsense.
The thing we can all agree on is that the decision is outrageous.