Rotherham foster parents deprived of children because of euroscepticism

[Rikupsoni]

BBC News - UKIP fostering decision 'indefensible' says Michael Gove

So foster parents lost their children on the council decision simply because they were members of the UK Independence Party. That party can be described perhaps best by 'right-wing anti-EU' and it thrives for stricter immigration laws led by Nigel Farage well-known from the EU parliament.

It's rather unacceptable that the social service nannies make these decisions simply by stating that they think one party is "racist" and the parents who are member of it don't deserve children. Sure, the UKIP wants stricter immigration laws, but what's wrong with that? There's the BNP for more radical opinions.

A few questions:
is Euroscepticism 'bigotry'? I've sort of seen that kind of alleging mentality: "So you're anti-integration, are you racist?" Or otherwise implying that for example opposing the Greek austerity measures is just because those people are racist towards the Greek...

Are stricter immigration laws racist? There's this weird phenomenon that anything related to immigration only can be made more lax, a step in the other direction is reactionary and racist. Seems like the left-wing multiculturalism ideology has become somewhat of a dogma, why can't it stand rational criticism? Even go so far as think that someone disagreeing with left-wing immigration policies wouldn't be a good parent.

Personally, I'd agree with the UKIP on some points I think, though I highly dislike Nigel Farage. Perhaps I, too, need some "re-education" to make myself more supportive of government regulated EU and immigration policies.

Though not surprising that this happens in the UK. A true nanny state bundled with supervision on every walk of life and nice political correctness. Perhaps the Conservatives are a bit better on this issue?

[Emperor Benedictine]

The council's strategic director of children and young people's services, Joyce Thacker, earlier defended the decision, saying it was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy.
She said: "I have legal advice I have to follow for the placement of children and I was criticised before for not making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met.

It shouldn't be an issue. At all. You should not be judging the capabilities of a foster family on how aware the child is of their minority background!

This is the heart of the problem really, moreso than any imagined drive to persecute members of right-wing political parties.

[MrFancypants]

So the parents want to restrict migration to UK but adopt chldren with a migratory background? Seems like a good reason not to let them handle foster children wtih migratory background.
Look at it from the perspective of these foster agencies - their motivation is to protect themselves and thus they avoid risks. Maybe the risk in this case is small, but if there are lots of foster parents who signal that they are accepting of other cultures then that seems like a safer bet. Maybe it is not fair, but being fair is not really the objective of such agencies. If they get mixed signals they go with someone else.

As for the UKIP - I don't really know what their position is, but whenever there is a party openly campaigning against immigrants in Germany they are usually rather far on the right and/or fishing for votes by extremists. So it doesn't surprise me if there is some bias against people with anti-migration views.

As for EU and migration - it will be interesting to see how the EU legislation and the current economic crisis works out. There seem to be a lot of people moving to Germany from southern European countries. Probably good for the industry, but it might overload the generous social network here and make for tough competition.

[Nemmerle]

They were assigned the children in the first place, it seems ridiculous for the government to go back on that. I could understand if they'd just assigned them some British children, and so sidestepped the issue completely, but in all honesty I doubt this does anyone much good - the children included.

There are around 65-70,000 children living in care in the UK - that is to say children for whom no adoption arrangements can or have been made. It's a lot of bother to adopt kids in this country, and the care homes [are hardly known for being centres of excellence.] Chances are these kids are going back into care.

Against which you have to balance the, not exactly earth-shattering, membership of these people in a party that is primarily known for wanting to leave the EU.

As for fairness - fairness should be the aim of all government agencies. If you're not going to treat people well, I really struggle to think why they should treat you well back. It seems to me that you're going to tapdance into hell if you don't oblige government agencies to be fair. It's not fair that person goes to jail, but my he employs so many people by being there. It's not fair we got rid of the national minimum wage, but things are so much cheaper for the rich now.... I mean really - in all other things but this? You end up with shit like you've got in the US where it's a felony to throw a snowball at a policeofficer, or to get given a slice of pizza - and in return you can go to one of their shithole solitary confinement jails forever.

I understand where their motivation lies, but it just so happens that their motivation is malign to near enough everyone's interests but their own.

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

So the parents want to restrict migration to UK but adopt chldren with a migratory background? Seems like a good reason not to let them handle foster children wtih migratory background.
Look at it from the perspective of these foster agencies - their motivation is to protect themselves and thus they avoid risks. Maybe the risk in this case is small, but if there are lots of foster parents who signal that they are accepting of other cultures then that seems like a safer bet. Maybe it is not fair, but being fair is not really the objective of such agencies. If they get mixed signals they go with someone else.

What kind of risk has really presented itself here?

So they're anti-immigration. They still chose to foster the children. Doesn't that sort of indicate that they are OK with them being in the country?

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Emperor Benedictine

What kind of risk has really presented itself here?

So they're anti-immigration. They still chose to foster the children. Doesn't that sort of indicate that they are OK with them being in the country?

The risk that the parents are not suitable, for example because they are racists.

It mostly indicates a contradiction. I agree with Nem that it didn't make a lot of sense to first assign the kids to these parents and then take them away (constantly switching parents probably isn't good for children's mental health, so they should only be taken away when things are really going badly), but I understand why the agencies would be suspicious.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Emperor Benedictine

What kind of risk has really presented itself here?

So they're anti-immigration. They still chose to foster the children. Doesn't that sort of indicate that they are OK with them being in the country?

Membership of UKIP doesn't even indicate that much. UKIP's for stricter immigration controls - not 0 immigration. Obviously that's going to appeal to people with racist tendencies, but it's hardly prima facie evidence thereof. But these days it seems anyone advocating that people have to meet criteria to move into a country must be a racist.

Hell, we send people to jail over harmless posts on their facebook accounts, ruin their lives by making them unable to get jobs. I'm surprised being a member of UKIP isn't a hanging offence. Freedom's pretty much dead in this shit country. You're watched everywhere you go, everything you say is - at least potentially - subject to review incase it hurts someone's feelings, [anti-terror laws get used for things like watching whether people are putting their dustbins out properly], there's no practical application of the party political system to counteract any of it....

I used to be against the EU. Now I'm strongly for it, even if just for the chance that when I've got a bit of money I'll be able to go there and flee the sinking ship.

[Emperor Benedictine]

I wouldn't say UKIP was any more racist than the currently ruling party, really.

And then there's this from the article;

"If the party mantra is, for example, ending the active promotion of multiculturalism I have to think about that... I have to think of their longer-term needs.

Ms Thacker added she did not think UKIP was a racist party, but said it had "very clear" immigration policies which she could not ignore.

So apparently there are no serious concerns of racism here, rather it's the idea that the children's "long-term needs" are not being adequately met if their carers are ideologically opposed to multiculturalism. What long-term needs those might be, I cannot fathom. I suppose it is something very important if it warrants giving these particular children a stable home for two months, and then suddenly taking it away again and claiming this is somehow in their best interests.

[MrFancypants]

I didn't say that party is racist. I said that if you randomly pick someone who votes for a right-wing party (and based on the bullet points in the article this party seems to be very far on the right) over randomly picking someone from the general population there is a higher risk that you end up with a racist.

That woman in the article basically said the same, she was only trying to be polite.

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

I didn't say that party is racist. I said that if you randomly pick someone who votes for a right-wing party (and based on the bullet points in the article this party seems to be very far on the right) over randomly picking someone from the general population there is a higher risk that you end up with a racist.

Until you consider that these UKIP voters volunteered to act as foster parents for three non-white(?) migrant children, yes. Then it seems more like a case of pursuing a generalised association between right-wing politics and racism into absurdity.