alpine_saint Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 Boy, have you f**ked up big-time... But thanks for showing us the inherent bigotry in the Labour party at borough council level. Even Millipen*s is sh*tting himself over this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 I love the fact they tried to justify it as well. It's utterly scandalous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 I wouldn't mind betting that these clueless idiots think UKIP are something to do with the BNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 Dreadful decision and good to see it's being condemned by all parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 Truly truly shocking. very few things make me genuinely angry, this was one of them. Not just for the unfairly discriminated foster parents but also for the children who were torn away from a home that was by their own council's admission a caring and loving environment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 these utter muppets at this level of government are ruining this country.....PC, scared to offend over the slightest thing.......now stuff like this I know it is not common..but one story like this is one too many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 November, 2012 Author Share Posted 24 November, 2012 I love the fact they tried to justify it as well. It's utterly scandalous. Yep. Severe disciplinary procedures were required, since political ideaology was put before children's welfare - the sine qua non of that job - but trying to justify it as well is for me gross misconduct and sackable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 I was amazed to hear about this on the radio but I can't believe that the f*ckwits are actually trying to defend the decision. As usual there will probably be no one sacked over this. As with most cases in the public sector, "lessons will be learnt" and the whole department from the top down will go into self preservation mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 It really just backs up the UKIP arguement; this country is currently being ruled by a bunch of politicians who won't say boo to a goose in case it offends them; we can't close our borders to unrestricted labour from around the continent (nobody was asked if this was ok) and to be fair to Labour, without the minimum wage it'd be worse as just think what kinda wages the companies would be paying these totally legal eastern european migrants? This is why we need a referendum but will we ever get one? (And I support Liebour....simply because I'm not of the class that the Tories have or will ever care about). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 Farage must be loving this free publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 This is quite chilling. It undermines all the values that we as a free nation represent. Repulsive intolerance at the expense of the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 Scandalous decision and someones head should roll. Not Gove's biggest fan but his recent speech on adoption, social workers, courts and addressing the failings of the current system was on the money. PS didn't Dangerous Dave label UKIP as fruitcakes and racists not long ago??? Seems as though our PM is n the same wavelength as some dinlos join Rotherham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 PS didn't Dangerous Dave label UKIP as fruitcakes and racists not long ago??? Seems as though our PM is n the same wavelength as some dinlos join Rotherham! http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/05/otherparties.politics "The Conservative leader, David Cameron, was last night threatened with a libel action by the UK Independence party (Ukip) after accusing his rivals for rightwing Eurosceptic votes of being "fruitcakes and loonies - and closet racists mostly"." "The Tory deputy chairman, Eric Pickles, MP for Brentwood and Ongar on the Essex fringes where Ukip polled 4.1% of the votes in 2005, reinforced his leader's defiance. "A number of organisations ... accuse Ukip of spreading hate and bigotry and they say it's not just anti-Europe, it's anti-black, it's anti-minority, anti-immigrants, anti-asylum seekers," he said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 What I find amazing is these Child service people find it unacceptable to place a person because of their political beliefs but totally acceptable to place a child with a family with strong religous beliefs, that may enforce them to follow them to their church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 Disgraceful, about as un-PC as you can get I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 So looks like Dave should resign really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 In a properly free society you have to listen to Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 You listen and laugh. If British education was working properly those two would be begging on the street, not being taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 24 November, 2012 Share Posted 24 November, 2012 (edited) You listen and laugh. If British education was working properly those two would be begging on the street, not being taken seriously. ----- Edited 25 November, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 25 November, 2012 Share Posted 25 November, 2012 UKIP could do really well in Rotherham. MacShane the expense fiddler should be enough for them not to vote Labour back in, no doubt they will though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 November, 2012 Share Posted 25 November, 2012 UKIP could do really well in Rotherham. MacShane the expense fiddler should be enough for them not to vote Labour back in, no doubt they will though. What a great message the people of Rotherham could send out. Macshane is the worst type of Euro nutter around.Completely out of touch with the majority of the public. He should be chucked in clink for his great fiddle, but watching UKIP win his seat would be pretty sweet as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 27 November, 2012 Author Share Posted 27 November, 2012 Yes, well, putting aside all the political manoeuvres, and back to the subject of the poor kids this cynical decision has buggered up. It has come out this morning that Rotherham Childrens Services have split the family up. So they have gone from being together in a loving home, to being split up probably in the care of a bunch of dunagree-wearing lezzas. This is an utter disgrace. I want to know why heads arent rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinger Posted 27 November, 2012 Share Posted 27 November, 2012 Yes, well, putting aside all the political manoeuvres, and back to the subject of the poor kids this cynical decision has buggered up. It has come out this morning that Rotherham Childrens Services have split the family up. So they have gone from being together in a loving home, to being split up probably in the care of a bunch of dunagree-wearing lezzas. This is an utter disgrace. I want to know why heads arent rolling. At least that couldn't happen under UKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 27 November, 2012 Share Posted 27 November, 2012 Yes, well, putting aside all the political manoeuvres, and back to the subject of the poor kids this cynical decision has buggered up. It has come out this morning that Rotherham Childrens Services have split the family up. So they have gone from being together in a loving home, to being split up probably in the care of a bunch of dunagree-wearing lezzas. This is an utter disgrace. I want to know why heads arent rolling. The practice of using decapitation as a penal measure ended in 1870. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 November, 2012 Share Posted 27 November, 2012 ....... a bunch of dunagree-wearing lezzas. There's nothing better than to throw a generic Daily Mail stereotype into an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 27 November, 2012 Author Share Posted 27 November, 2012 There's nothing better than to throw a generic Daily Mail stereotype into an argument. Where the cap fits.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 27 November, 2012 Share Posted 27 November, 2012 It's not really the labour party though is it? It's not like it is Labour party policy(as is quite clear from the aftermath). It seems to be more of a decision made on a personal level by particular workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinger Posted 27 November, 2012 Share Posted 27 November, 2012 Where the cap fits.... Where what cap fits what? The cap of your stereotype fits the situation you have imagined in your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 28 November, 2012 Share Posted 28 November, 2012 At least that couldn't happen under UKIP Thats his personal view, whats the problem? Do you want all politicians to be PC zombies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 28 November, 2012 Share Posted 28 November, 2012 What a great message the people of Rotherham could send out. Macshane is the worst type of Euro nutter around.Completely out of touch with the majority of the public. He should be chucked in clink for his great fiddle, but watching UKIP win his seat would be pretty sweet as well. It would be priceless.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinger Posted 28 November, 2012 Share Posted 28 November, 2012 Thats his personal view, whats the problem? Do you want all politicians to be PC zombies? PC zombies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 December, 2012 Share Posted 1 December, 2012 More information on this case http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed Demonstrating that, sometimes, things are not as cut and dried as they first seem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 December, 2012 Share Posted 1 December, 2012 More information on this case http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed Demonstrating that, sometimes, things are not as cut and dried as they first seem the guardian...that's a surprise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 December, 2012 Share Posted 1 December, 2012 the guardian...that's a surprise A surprise? You mean the fact that a newspaper bothers to consider all facts of the case rather than rely on sensationalist headlines? It is a rarity, I'll grant you. Did you actually READ the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 1 December, 2012 Share Posted 1 December, 2012 More information on this case http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed Demonstrating that, sometimes, things are not as cut and dried as they first seem How does that article change anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 December, 2012 Share Posted 1 December, 2012 How does that article change anything? It doesn't change the headline fact - that, allegedly, the children were removed from the foster parents because of the foster parents' UKIP membership. But it does report that a) it was a short term emergency placement because of alleged abuse of one of the children by its father and because the father had, apparently, threatened the children's mother (implying therefore that the UKIP foster parents were aware that it was an emergency placement - and sometimes these can be as short as 48 hours) and b) the brief for a permanent placement included the requirement that the more permanent foster parents be Roma speakers. I haven't changed my mind about the apparent rights and wrongs about how the council's social workers handled the case (although, of course, social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't) but it does suggest that the circumstances were not quite as cut and dried as first reported. And I'm always in favour of considering all angles where possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 1 December, 2012 Share Posted 1 December, 2012 It doesn't change the headline fact - that, allegedly, the children were removed from the foster parents because of the foster parents' UKIP membership. But it does report that a) it was a short term emergency placement because of alleged abuse of one of the children by its father and because the father had, apparently, threatened the children's mother (implying therefore that the UKIP foster parents were aware that it was an emergency placement - and sometimes these can be as short as 48 hours) and b) the brief for a permanent placement included the requirement that the more permanent foster parents be Roma speakers. I haven't changed my mind about the apparent rights and wrongs about how the council's social workers handled the case (although, of course, social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't) but it does suggest that the circumstances were not quite as cut and dried as first reported. And I'm always in favour of considering all angles where possible. All irrelevant, Joyce Thacker made it crystal clear that they were removed because of the UKIP connection. As usual it's the public sector going into self preservation mode. The only thing that matters now for these council workers is that they stay in their jobs. Deflect the blame, cover up and put out as much positive PR as possible an there is no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 1 December, 2012 Share Posted 1 December, 2012 More information on this case http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed Demonstrating that, sometimes, things are not as cut and dried as they first seem But whilst that piece provides more information and background to the story, I don't see how it in an way justifies or explains the linking of being UKIP members and therefore the unsuitability of being foster parents. Have not seen anything to suggest that this couple lied about being told being UKIP members was a problem and as others have pointed out RBC haven't withdrawn that shout either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 December, 2012 Share Posted 1 December, 2012 But whilst that piece provides more information and background to the story, I don't see how it in an way justifies or explains the linking of being UKIP members and therefore the unsuitability of being foster parents. Have not seen anything to suggest that this couple lied about being told being UKIP members was a problem and as others have pointed out RBC haven't withdrawn that shout either. Exactly so - but it does give us more background information. I am, and would continue to be horrified if people were denied such an opportunity because of their political views. Foster parents generally do a stirling job and goodness knows there's a dire shortage of people willing to undertake such a crucial role. I guess I'm really saying that we're all guilty of knee-jerkism and I certainly was in this case. I still believe it was wrong, but this article does give enable me to have a more informed and rounded view. It hasn't changed my mind though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now