Be Excellent To Each Other

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

What's people's thoughts on this?

As much as I think UKIP are cocks, this is ridiculous (if the membership is all there is to it).

This story smacks of "more to it than meets the eye". Obviously outrageous if that really is all there is to it.

Indeed.

"A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party."

I doubt very much that this is in any way the sole reason.

I'm reminded of the episode of Blackadder Goes Forth where Melchett's pigeon is killed...

"The charge before us is that the Flanders pigeon murderer did deliberately, callously, and with beastliness of forethought murder a
lovely, innocent pigeon. And disobeyed some orders as well."

I wouldn't have removed the children from the parents' care, but the idea of 'members of political party who don't like immigration taking in immigrant kids' is a source of some cognitive dissonance.

I think, given the recent history of South Yorkshire's care system, they decided they didn't want to take the chance of kids being maltreated while in the care of the authority.

Surely the fact that they took them in speaks more about their views on foreigners than their membership of UKIP, if they were some horrible racists then surely they wouldn't have. If that's all there is to it then it seems pretty daft.

What Curio said. As much as I disagree with their political points, they're not racist.

I think there must be more to it because surely any care authority has to provide reasons for everything and this isn't a good enough reason.
How did the care authority find out about the UKIP membership?

There's much bigger parties than UKIP with dodgy policies and attitudes and members of thise don't get prevented from fostering children.

What next? Tory foster carers banned from fostering poor children?

We're hearing half of the story. Maybe they beat them like elephants at Twycross too, but the media wouldn't like that story.

They said they got a tip off. Social services don't seem to be saying that there's anything more to it and the couple had fostered kids before.

Mrs Grim... says "It would make me think very hard about placing any children with them if I knew. Whether or not I removed the children would be down to their current / previous level of care, but it's certainly a possibility."

Loved "call me" Dave retracting his "the UKIP membership are all closet racists" comment from a while back.

There's a sliding scale here, certainly - you wouldn't place a 14 year old openly gay person with an evangelical Ugandan Christian family, but UKIP don't believe in anything much different to the Tories, they just do it in a more brainless, plane crashing way. There's nothing inherently evil about UKIP. The fact the foster parents were trying to learn the kids' language speaks volumes about the fallacy of the "they want to end multiculturalism"!!!!"11!!" line repeated endlessly by the council lady on Breakfast this morning.

However, the fact they've been taken off the foster care list for all children is a wee bit suspicious, and makes me think there's something more to this than the UKIP angle. Then again, the council lady seemed quite clear that they'd spoken to lawyers specifically about the UKIP thing and used that, and it's an odd thing to use as a public reason if they had a more real one behind it.

I think they said on the radio that the kids were from an EU migrant background.

I'll echo what others have said here; assuming this really is all there is to to this, it's utterly ludicrous - in fact worse than that, actually pretty sinister. Who the fuck do the Local Authority think they are, if they're denying these children their foster carers on the grounds of pretty mainstream, benign political beliefs that have nothing whatsoever to do with these carers' ability to discharge their responsibilities?

Tories make perfectly good parents and carers as well you know! One doesn't need to be a Lefty fan of EU bureaucracy, ineptitude, inefficiency, utterly disastrous geo-fiscal pie-in-the-sky policies like the Euro and CAP (which have empirically and quite demonstrably bankrupted Europe, causing a whole bunch of human suffering and impoverishment to boot), and even outright corruption for that matter, as evidenced by the EU's own accounts), in order to be a good mum or dad.

Bleh. Political Correctness Gone Mad(tm) etc. - except actually, this tired old cliche seems rather quite apt in this case.

As an aside, as a moderate Tory sitting very much to the Left of that Party, I always shunned UKIP. However, even I am becoming (reluctantly) ever more receptive to the super-Euro Sceptic position/message. I mean seriously, how can one not? We've all got a pair of eyes in our heads; even the most resolute Europhile must surely pick up on the disastrous effect and execution of the Euro in particular, but also the gross waste that's been going on for decades now in the form of the CAP - our paying French farmers handsomely to be crap. Why?

It's only going to get worse, too. Even fucking Labour have (rather belatedly.... LULZ) cynically jumped onto the Euro Sceptic bandwagon, taking the Tories to task over the forthcoming EU budget (er, despite this increasing multiple-fold under their own tenure, in conjunction with agreeing to lop off billions of our rebate for precisely fuck all in return, as IDS so eloquently pointed out in last week's QT). Just as they've worked out Socialism doesn't actually work either, hence all their 'One Nation' talk and attempted stealing of Tory clothing... what a joke they are. Naked, cynical power-grabbing for power's own sake; devoid of any political narrative at all, cogent or otherwise.

At least UKIP have a bona fide political identity; one might not agree with it but you can at least respect them for it.

Which goes far deeper than just "get out of the EU". Their vehemently anti-gay marriage stance, for example. As for the EU, despite everything that's gone on, I find it both depressing and laughable that British people en masse (presumably driven by tabloid hysteria more than anything) think we'd somehow be better off and more prosperous outside of the EU. Most of our trade is with the EU, and some of that would be affected. Free movement? Potentially gone, or at the very least gone until complex negotiations are completed. Voice? Gone. The UK would remain a mildly important country, but alone it's going to be of diminishing importance. And it's utterly barmy that people point at Norway and go "well, look at THOSE guys—they're done OK"—this being the Norway that started banking its oil revenue and is a success largely due to its overtly socialist model that most British Eurosceptics run a mile from. Those calling for some renegotiation make sense (Indie bloke on Question Time rightly pointed out that even most Conservative voters are in favour of denationalising the trains, but we can't, due to EU competition law), but leaping from the moving car on to the fast lane of the motorway isn't the smart move.

Yeah, it's obviously a story where the facts just aren't there. It's easy to present something to get the desired response. Maybe it's something the parents said about the kids? Sounds more likely. But we just don't know. Hand wringing about it the way we've been told to is a waste of our lives.

No, not at all:

I should perhaps mention that Mrs Grim... is a social worker whose job is to asses and monitor foster carers and place children appropriately

Others have got their conspiracy theory hats on: http://notsobigsociety.wordpress.com/20 ... odswallop/

That said, I also saw a page that had helpfully compiled a bunch of UKIP quotes and ended with "and so do you think these people would be appropriate to foster Easter European kids?"

I do wonder how much of the story we're hearing.

Really? No children would be placed with them at all because they support a particular, completely legal, political party? On what basis would that decision be reached?

I always find it hilarious when socialists point to Norway and say "there you go, Norway is grate because they're socialists!". The reason why Norway is like it is is down to the fact that it's soaked in oil and gas and has a relatively tiny population. Even socialism can't mess that up, right? I mean, I could equally well try to argue that an absolute monarchy - a totalitarian state such as Saudi Arabia - was the thing for others to emulate, on the basis that they're a wealthy bunch...? Totally ridiculous!

But anyway, I am *not* defending UKIP, as I thought I made clear. I wasn't aware of their stance on gay marriage (precisely because I don't support them, am not interested in them and therefore don't know a great deal about them), but given that I have lended my unstinting and unreserved support to gay marriage, here and elsewhere, years before it became fashionable so to do, I hardly think anyone needs to worry about my stance in such things.

I am merely pointing out that their Eurosceptic stance is, to my mind, ever increasing in validity even from my own pretty sceptic viewpoint held over the last 20+ years (again, long before fashionable). Most British people would appear to increasingly agree as well, as many of the things that I and other Eurosceptic Tories warned them about a decade or more ago are now coming to pass.

Whatever, even if people *are* opposed to gay marriage on religious or other grounds (and I am NOT one of them), and think along the lines of UKIP that we should get out of the EU and adopt classical Tory economic principles that have served us well in the past, these are NOT valid reasons to exclude them from being foster parents IMO! I am gobsmacked by Grim...'s comments on that score, to be honest.

(As for Tories being in favour of re-nationalisation of the rail networks? Sure you jest. Can't say I've ever met a single one who hankers after the good old days of British Rail or anything like it. The Public Sector is an anathema to Conservatives, whether to the left of the party (like me), centre or right. It's the very keystone of our unity and all that we believe).

Haaaang on, mate. SA is a repressive state that treats women, migrants and minorities shockingly. Norway is, basically, a utopia. Yes, that's down to oil and gas, but they could equally have spunked all that income on overpriced, badly run PFI projects and lost all the money and not been able to afford free childcare and lolliopops for everyone.

Indeed. And had they done all of those things they would STILL be in clover, thanks to their tiny population AND great natural wealth.

I'm not saying Norway could not have been run much WORSE than it was/is by the way.

I dunno, man (although that's not exactly what she said). I'll ask her tonight.

I think Norway are quite unusual because they *haven't* spent all their oil money on lollipops and monorails and free health care and chocolate microscopes. They've stuck it all in the Big Oil Fund and have strict rules about spending it. Most of their day-to-day stuff is funded by the really high taxation they have. Sweden is great as well, and they have no oil or gas to speak of.

They invested heavily in Disco in the 70's though.

Plus, extreme right-wing groups are ALWAYS playing the "we're so persecuted for being outsiders/the silent majority" card. The BNP play it, the EDL play it Ukip play it, the extreme right across the rest of Europe and the world play it. It's part of one of their key tactics, anti-establishment populism.

Good on Mrs Grim... for her stance on child protection BTW.

Presumably we'll never hear the full story - I imagine it's very unlikely that the Council can comment on cases like this. We'll only get the parent's side of this ( or random conjecture ) ever.

Save the whale
Its, fins, its hump, its tail
Stop the slaughter, don’t you think you ought ter
Save the whale?

We don’t have to kill the whale
To have a lovely time
There are lots of other fish
Upon which we can dine
Pilchards in tomato sauce-
An old favourite of mine
And tuna chunks in brine
And tuna chunks in brine

Don’t be naughty Norway
To kill the whale’s a crime
There are lots of other fish
Upon which you can dine
Have you tried a cod portion
In parsley sauce – divine!
And tuna chunks in brine
And tune chunks in brine.

(Everybody!)

Save the whale
Its fins, its hump, its tail
Stop the slaughter
Don’t you think you ought to save the whale…

Well, obviously not a utopia for whales. Or reindeer, mooses or anything else that might conceivably taste nice have scientific research value.

To be serious for a moment, I have to confess I wasn't aware the Norwegians hunted whales, so I think a little bit less well of them now.

Having recently discovered the band TYR after looking for viking related music for Skyrim, I got interested in their home country of Faroe. I'd all but planned a holiday there when I discovered that they are big on whale hunting and eating whale blubber. Lovely!

Hail to the hammer.

You can't touch this.

MmMrmrmmrhrmmrmmbrmrmrmbrmmrbm.

*starts reading*


I… er… what?


I… er… WHAT?

What an absolutely irredeemable fuckwit cretin.

You have to remember that UKIP are the Tory Party, but with the nice bits taken out. Or the BNP but with a private education.

The entity with parental responsibility for its looked-after children.

... whom Cavey despises for being The Public Sector. He'd probably prefer it replaced with unregulated child buying markets. God forbid the state ever spending taxpayers money on protection of the vulnerable.

Indeed, I knew that. That context of my (rhetorical) question was, however, "what has being a UKIP voter got to do with being an unfit parent and/or foster carer?"

Foster carers are already in very short supply; many kids are languishing in childrens homes, which is a life tragedy for them. In fact, Mrs C and I are seriously considering throwing our hat into the ring; we've a large (empty) house; my wife doesn't work and could throw her energies into helping, shaping and caring for a disturbed child or teenager. We can provide a peaceful, loving, secure and healthy environment for a young person who has hitherto been dealt a cruel hand in life.

My wife is an ardent True Blue Tory, much to the right of myself in the political spectrum stakes. Are you, or is anyone seriously suggesting, that she, or we, would be unfit to care for such a child, on the basis of perfectly mainstream political beliefs? At least 30% of the entire electorate agree with her; more like 50%+ in Rural Cheshire where we live. So then, are all of these people (my wife included) unfit to care for children in your book?

Yeah, yeah. Troll away, see if I care what you think. Face it: you're a dick, end of.

Now, where's that super-duper ignore function that everyone is going on about? Never felt much of a need for such things before, but I reckon I could cheerfully see out the rest of my days without ever being further troubled with your petty shit stirring, pal.

I have not defended the authority's decision. I simply explained why they may have come to that decision, from my position of working in children's services in Yorkshire.

However, if i were a parent (which the LA legally is), then I'd be very careful about who I let my kids stay with. But then I'm a human being and, as such, very biased. A local authority can't really justify similar bias. But does have to be very careful.

Sorry, I'm probably being thick here, but I am still at a total loss as to what a parent (or Local Authority) would have to be so careful about, in letting their child stay with a perfectly respectable UKIP voter, or indeed party member?

There's been some mutterings in this thread about gay marriage; is that it? Loads of people in the UK, quite possibly the majority of them, are against the idea of gay marriage in its entirety and fullest possible extent/logical conclusion. (Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not one of them - and neither is Mrs C for that matter. She is a kind hearted, loving person who happens to be a Tory...).

I wouldn't respect a UKIP voter.

I wouldn't particularly, either, especially in the light of what I've learned in this thread. So what though? Doesn't make them unfit for parenthood. Plenty of people don't respect me either.

My point is they're not the parent. The local authority is. So if I'm a parent (LA), then why would I let my kids stay with someone for whom I have no respect?

I'm not stopping them being 'a parent', just being in charge of my kids.

We're entirely at cross purposes here mate. I'm not questioning who *you* would choose to let your kids stay with (although, with all respect, I do find it a little hard to get my head around. Most of my friends are super-liberals and/or socialists. It never occurred to me that I shouldn't let my kids stay over at their houses lol)

No, I'm questioning the Local Authority not allowing this, even to the extent of taking settled foster kids off people and chucking them back into a childrens home. That is, pretty much, the very definition of stopping them being a 'parent', surely? And what of the effect on the kids themselves?

Again, not defending the LA. And yes, the wellbeing of the kids is paramount.

However, my point is the foster carers aren't the parent; the authority is. So who i would let my kids stay with is relevant to the point, as I - as parent - am occupying the same role as the LA does in this instance.

Sorry, still don't get it. Agree with your first sentence (in which case we're agreed anyway).

As for the second para, yes, the Local Authority might be the legal guardian and so 'occupy the same role' as a parent in this specific, legal sense, but not in a pragmatic/relevant to this discussion sense. You still haven't explained the specific, legitimate risk factors in this case? The fact that you personally do not like or respect UKIP voters is, with respect, neither here nor there.

Both of those things are conjuncture, aren't they?