Rotherham Council

[TrueBlue]

words fail me they really do! UKIP who I strongly support are a legitimate political party with no racists or fascist views!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

I agree with what they stand for...

UKIP immigration policy

An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement.

After the five year freeze, a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia to be introduced.

An aspiration to ensure that future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people a year.

Regain control of UK borders by leaving the EU.

Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years.

End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government

 

[OldBlueLady]

That's scandalous. Unless there is strong evidence that this couple have been indoctrinating the children with their beliefs, there is no way they should be denied being able to provide a home for children needing fostering. Since when has a person's politics been relevant in fostering?

How do the children who have been removed from the home feel about this, have Rotherham Council actually considered that? There are far better reasons than a person's politics that make them unsuitable as foster parents, and uprooting children that will probably already have insecurities will do them no service whatsoever.

 

[TrueBlue]

That's scandalous. Unless there is strong evidence that this couple have been indoctrinating the children with their beliefs, there is no way they should be denied being able to provide a home for children needing fostering. Since when has a person's politics been relevant in fostering?

How do the children who have been removed from the home feel about this, have Rotherham Council actually considered that? There are far better reasons than a person's politics that make them unsuitable as foster parents, and uprooting children that will probably already have insecurities will do them no service whatsoever.

I knew I could count on your support! we don't agree on much but we are both right of center!

 

[davewebbsbrain]

words fail me they really do! UKIP who I strongly support are a legitimate political party with no racists or fascist views!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

I agree with what they stand for...

UKIP immigration policy

An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement.

After the five year freeze, a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia to be introduced.

An aspiration to ensure that future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people a year.

Regain control of UK borders by leaving the EU.

Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years.

End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government

If they allow that fat Twunt Evans there then immigrants are the least of their worries

 

[dloman]

Not a big fan of UKIP per se (Though don't mind Nigel Farage, seems quite self depreciating), but as Scott says they are a legitimate political party with legitimate policies mainly to get out of the EU. Awful decision if that is all it is based on.

 

[Dick Bate's Protege]

They've created a **** storm here; The Media/Twitter erupted this morning. I predict that this will be reversed by Monday and the Council will scramble around for a scape goat and pin it on the tea boy.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Even this lefty can see it's a disgusting decision.

 

[Earls Hall Blue]

Looking past the sensationalist headlines & reading the councils comments, I can see their reasoning to a point, but as much as it may seem important to consider the 'cultural and ethnic needs ' of the kids, I'm sure a bed & hot meals in the environment of a family is more important.

Smacks to me of a council official making waves after being told off previously.

 

[Bielzibubz]

And apparently the woman who heads the department that took this ludicrous decision made it based on some advice given to her from their legal department. That in itself suggests they knew they were on dodgy ground in the first place. Just another example of the PC culture taking precedent over common sense.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Looking past the sensationalist headlines & reading the councils comments, I can see their reasoning to a point, but as much as it may seem important to consider the 'cultural and ethnic needs ' of the kids, I'm sure a bed & hot meals in the environment of a family is more important.

Smacks to me of a council official making waves after being told off previously.

The woman interviewed on the BBC news this morning openly said they'd come in for for some flak previously over decisions they'd made concerning placement of children with foster parents so I make you right on this.

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Just another example of the PC culture taking precedent over common sense.

Sick and tired of the PC brigade, and being told 'you cant say this', 'you cant say that' etc. Just who are these people?. They seem to cause more problems than they solve?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I don't think this is indicative of anything other than one person coming to a very OTT decision that will be overturned, the non PC brigade shouldn't get over excited about this as there will be virtually no support for this from any quarters

 

[Bielzibubz]

I don't think this is indicative of anything other than one person coming to a very OTT decision that will be overturned, the non PC brigade shouldn't get over excited about this as there will be virtually no support for this from any quarters

But unfortunately that's not the case. There may be one woman heading up the department but no way should this be considered as an individuals sole decision. Whenever a decision is taken to remove a child from it's surroundings or home environment there are a plethora of people involved ranging from the individual case officer to, in this instance, the legal team. The department as a whole has been criticized in the past for supposedly not taking into account the cultural and ethical needs of the children in their care when making foster care placements. This is the SOLE result of those criticisms born out of a culture of fear and political correctness that's slowly eating away out our lives on a daily basis. Shocking!

 

[Davros]

its interesting how the PC brigade tell us you can't discriminate against someone because of their religion, but apparently you can because of there Political views... when both are effectivly choices in personal belief.

 

[OldBlueLady]

its interesting how the PC brigade tell us you can't discriminate against someone because of their religion, but apparently you can because of there Political views... when both are effectivly choices in personal belief.

Indeed, selective PC

 

[Pubey]

Foster children are allocated by religion (i.e. they're matched up where possible). I think people are confusing discrimination with policies to ensure that a vulnerable child is protected.

That's not to say that on the face of it Rotherham Council's decision seems mental. But we've only got a small part of the story.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Pubes, did you see the interview with Thacker, the head of children's services (or whatever it was called) at Rotherham Council? She said on camera that the council and her department had come in for criticism for not paying enough attention to the ethical and cultural requirements of the children in their care in the past when choosing potential foster parents. She was asked on many occasions by the interviewer if the decision was based on those issues alone and she said yes they were, the cultural, ethical and religious needs of the children 'going forward', she loved that phrase and used it extensively.

This decision was clearly based on a fear of criticism from outside her department and instead of using common sense and making a decision based on that and the departments obligations to the children thay have gone completely the other way.

At the end of the day there are inescapable truths here.

1. Basing foster care on a political affiliation of the carers is wrong, end of. That's what was done.

2. Basic common sense has gone by the wayside in certain sectors of the public sector workforce because of political correctness and a blame culture that has grown and grown here in the UK over the last 10 to 15 years.

3. Until a politician or political party as a whole has the balls to stand up and do and say the right things concerning points 1 & 2 above and to potentially put their career on a knife edge things will only continue to get worse 'going forward' in the future ;)

 

[OldBlueLady]

1. Basing foster care on a political affiliation of the carers is wrong, end of. That's what was done.

2. Basic common sense has gone by the wayside in certain sectors of the public sector workforce because of political correctness and a blame culture that has grown and grown here in the UK over the last 10 to 15 years.

3. Until a politician or political party as a whole has the balls to stand up and do and say the right things concerning points 1 & 2 above and to potentially put their career on a knife edge things will only continue to get worse 'going forward' in the future ;)

This is absolutely spot on. In ALL cases the best person for a job/role/position of responsibility should be judged on merit not according to meeting criteria which is often to the detriment of the people they're serving, which, in this case, is children in care.

 

[Pubey]

This is absolutely spot on. In ALL cases the best person for a job/role/position of responsibility should be judged on merit not according to meeting criteria which is often to the detriment of the people they're serving, which, in this case, is children in care.

How do you determine merit if there isn't a clear criteria?

 

[Bielzibubz]

Merit, or lack thereof, cannot be based on any one thing or criteria. It's certainly not based on any political affiliation.

Whichever way you dress it up this decision is plainly wrong. And that's just my opinion based on the interview given by the woman who heads up the department that took it.