Couple have foster family removed for supporting 'racist' UKIP

[transmanche]

Moving the goalposts ? Like when you said Trevor Philips did say what I said he did but the nasty papers changed his words around.

Did you actually read what he said?

 

[Johnuk123]

Yes it is. Fostering children is not.

Ok then I'll ask you if you think the couple were racist ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did you actually read what he said?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1896134/Trevor-Phillips-warns-of-immigration-cold-war.html

Seems pretty negative to me, But as you reckon the papers change things to suit themselves it's probably all made up.

 

[transmanche]

Ok then I'll ask you if you think the couple were racist ?

I'm not sure that using emotive labels will help here.

But if the question is "Do I think that people who a) do not believe in a multicultural Britain and b) believe that any EU citizen arriving in the UK after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed from the UK, are appropriate people to foster Polish children?" - then the answer is no, I do not think such people are appropriate.

But before you fly off in a hissy fit, read what I said way back in post #3.

Seems pretty negative to me, But as you reckon the papers change things to suit themselves it's probably all made up.

Did you read his actual words in the link I posted? And are you that naive to think that papers don't twist things to suit their own agenda? :roll:

 

[Johnuk123]

I'm not sure that using emotive labels will help here.

But if the question is "Do I think that people who a) do not believe in a multicultural Britain and b) believe that any EU citizen arriving in the UK after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed from the UK, are appropriate people to foster Polish children?" - then the answer is no, I do not think such people are appropriate.

But before you fly off in a hissy fit, read what I said way back in post #3.

I don't have hissy fits and can you point me to where the couple said everybody arriving here after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed.

 

[transmanche]

I don't have hissy fits and can you point me to where the couple said everybody arriving here after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed.

Perhaps you'd like to read what I actually said (including post 3) and not just what you think I said!

 

[Johnuk123]

I'm not sure that using emotive labels will help here.

But if the question is "Do I think that people who a) do not believe in a multicultural Britain and b) believe that any EU citizen arriving in the UK after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed from the UK, are appropriate people to foster Polish children?" - then the answer is no, I do not think such people are appropriate.

But before you fly off in a hissy fit, read what I said way back in post #3.

Did you read his actual words in the link I posted? And are you that naive to think that papers don't twist things to suit their own agenda? :roll:

I see, if you post a link from the Guardian it is taken as gospel but links from other papers are twisted.
You can't have it both ways.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I see, if you post a link from the Guardian it is taken as gospel but links from other papers are twisted.
You can't have it both ways.

And you're just as guilty of that as everyone else on here.

 

[transmanche]

I see, if you post a link from the Guardian it is taken as gospel but links from other papers are twisted.
You can't have it both ways.

I'm not seeking to "have it both ways".

The piece from The Guardian was an article written by Trevor Phillips himself; i.e. his own words. The piece from the Telegraph was a journalist's interpretation and in line with the paper's editorial policy. Two very different things.

 

[Johnuk123]

Perhaps you'd like to read what I actually said (including post 3) and not just what you think I said!

Ok then I'll, put it another way can you point to me where the couple have admitted to actively supporting all UKIP policy.

You will be hard pushed to find anybody who will say they fully agree with EVERY policy of any party.

 

[transmanche]

Ok then I'll, put it another way can you point to me where the couple have admitted to actively supporting all UKIP policy.

You will be hard pushed to find anybody who will say they fully agree with EVERY policy of any party.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Because if you did, you'd realise what a nonsensical question that is.

 

[Johnuk123]

Did you actually read what I wrote? Because if you did, you'd realise what a nonsensical question that is.

Read what you wrote ? yes I did and my question stands.

 

[transmanche]

Read what you wrote ? yes I did and my question stands.

Obviously you didn't. So I'll spell it out for you.

In post #123, I said:

But if the question is "Do I think that people who a) do not believe in a multicultural Britain and b) believe that any EU citizen arriving in the UK after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed from the UK, are appropriate people to foster Polish children?" - then the answer is no, I do not think such people are appropriate.​

Whilst earlier in post #3, I said:

But (and it's a big but), Social Services should have spoken to the foster parents first to establish their real views and suitability as foster parents for those children. And most importantly, once the children had been placed, they should not have been removed as a knee-jerk reaction.​

Armed with those two pieces of information, hopefully its obvious to you why asking me "point to me where the couple have admitted to actively supporting all UKIP policy" is a nonsensical question; when a) I have never claimed that to be the case and b) what I actually said was the opposite of that!

 

[Johnuk123]

Obviously you didn't. So I'll spell it out for you.

In post #123, I said:

But if the question is "Do I think that people who a) do not believe in a multicultural Britain and b) believe that any EU citizen arriving in the UK after 1 Jan 2004 should be removed from the UK, are appropriate people to foster Polish children?" - then the answer is no, I do not think such people are appropriate.
​

Whilst earlier in post #3, I said:

But (and it's a big but), Social Services should have spoken to the foster parents first to establish their real views and suitability as foster parents for those children. And most importantly, once the children had been placed, they should not have been removed as a knee-jerk reaction.
​

Armed with those two pieces of information, hopefully its obvious to you why asking me "point to me where the couple have admitted to actively supporting all UKIP policy" is a nonsensical question; when a) I have never claimed that to be the case and b) what I actually said was the opposite of that!

Why do you say "if the question is" and then post your own question.

Why post a question you have invented and then fail to say why it applies to the couple in question.

 

[transmanche]

Why do you say "if the question is" and then post your own question.

Why post a question you have invented and then fail to say why it applies to the couple in question.

Because your questions were pointless and/or nonsensical.

Let's try one more time:

• I don't know if the couple are 'racist' or not. Neither do you. Neither of us have that information. So it's a pointless question.
• In post #123 I said that in my opinion, people who hold views in accordance with official UKIP policy on immigration and multiculturalism are not appropriate foster parents for these Polish children.
• I do not know whether these people do hold views in accordance with official UKIP policy on immigration and multiculturalism. Neither do you. So asking me to point out "where the couple have admitted to actively supporting all UKIP policy", or why I have "failed to say why it applies to the couple in question" are both pointless questions.
• In post #3 I said that in my opinion Social Services should have spoken to the foster parents to establish their actual views - to see if they do hold views in accordance with official UKIP policy on immigration and multiculturalism, or not.

It's not possible to explain it more simply for you.

 

[tbtc]

How "liberal" are UKIP when it comes to adoption? According to one representative of the party, gay people should not be allowed to adopt...

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk...rth-says-gay/story-17426910-detail/story.html

UKIP'S candidate for the Croydon North by-election says gay people should not be allowed to adopt

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you couldn't look after your child and you had to put them up for adoption would you honestly want your child to be adopted by a gay couple?

"Would you seriously want that or a heterosexual family? Which would be more healthy for the child?

"A caring loving home is a heterosexual or single family. I don't believe (a gay couple) is healthy for a child."

"There are people out there who bring up their kids encouraging them to believe they are gay themselves," he said.

"If the child is properly heterosexual and they are put in foster homes without any thought or consideration of who they are or what their identity is, that's not right

So now UKIP are against putting kids into foster care without any consideration of their identity?

And people are gay because their parents encourage them to be gay?

 

[wintonian]

I refound this excellent publication; (A Practical Guide to Fostering Law, Fostering Regulations, Child Care Law and the Youth Justice System) excellent publication whilst hunting round the legal shelves of Southampton library this morning. It is a very easy read and sets out clearly the reverent factors (as per legislation) such as the needs to consider both the child's and perspective carers cultural identitys.

I expect it will be available in most large librarys for people to flick through if they so wished.

 

[Johnuk123]

I refound this excellent publication; (A Practical Guide to Fostering Law, Fostering Regulations, Child Care Law and the Youth Justice System) excellent publication whilst hunting round the legal shelves of Southampton library this morning. It is a very easy read and sets out clearly the reverent factors (as per legislation) such as the needs to consider both the child's and perspective carers cultural identitys.

I expect it will be available in most large librarys for people to flick through if they so wished.

I bet it doesn't say being a member of UKIP is not allowed.

 

[Eagle]

How "liberal" are UKIP when it comes to adoption? According to one representative of the party, gay people should not be allowed to adopt...

I was about to say "even if they're single?" but then I realized that he's probably against that too.

 

[wintonian]

I bet it doesn't say being a member of UKIP is not allowed.

Obviously not and such a requirement would be at odds with equality legislation. But it does say that both the cultural needs of the child and the carers need to be considered.

I can't remember the exact example I was looking at this morning but it had a similar effect to whether Islamic carers would feel able to take a child to a Catholic nursery that said child was currently attending.

If the carers do feel that this would not be an issue for them then as long as everything else is okay they could be deemed a suitable match.

 

[transmanche]

I bet it doesn't say being a member of UKIP is not allowed.

Do you agree with the official UKIP policy on immigration and multiculturalism?

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-row-children-were-split-up-when-removed.html

Not a surprise, how on earth can it be preferable that 3 apparently very happy children in an excellent foster home are going to be better off taken away and split up.

 

[table38]

Because in the world of childrens welfare, social services are used to doing pretty much what they want, hiding behind a cloak of secrecy because of the Childrens Act and secret Family Courts.

They appear totally unaccountable, becase they just cite "it's a complicated case but we can't discuss it because of the law which is there to protect the welfare of the children"

There are allegedly worse cases than this. examples below. In my opinion, this is exactly what can happen when the judicial system isn't open to public scrutiny.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9700242/A-barrister-becomes-the-judge-of-her-clients-sanity.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9652763/Judge-approves-seizing-a-baby-born-abroad-against-EU-law.html

 

[Johnuk123]

Because in the world of childrens welfare, social services are used to doing pretty much what they want, hiding behind a cloak of secrecy because of the Childrens Act and secret Family Courts.

They appear totally unaccountable, becase they just cite "it's a complicated case but we can't discuss it because of the law which is there to protect the welfare of the children"

There are allegedly worse cases than this. examples below. In my opinion, this is exactly what can happen when the judicial system isn't open to public scrutiny.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9700242/A-barrister-becomes-the-judge-of-her-clients-sanity.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...eizing-a-baby-born-abroad-against-EU-law.html

Those cases are terrible but not surprising.

As you say as soon as a council especially in a child case gets found out for incompetence they shield behind "we'd love to tell you all about it but can't" rule.

 

[table38]

IIRC there was one woman whose kids were taken into care, but wasn't even allowed to know the reason why or the case against her.

You would think in this country if you were being accused of something, you would be allowed to know what you were being accused of so you could build a case to refute it

 

[Johnuk123]

IIRC there was one woman whose kids were taken into care, but wasn't even allowed to know the reason why or the case against her.

You would think in this country if you were being accused of something, you would be allowed to know what you were being accused of so you could build a case to refute it

Another shocking case here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ow-his-jaw-got-broken-say-social-workers.html

 

[transmanche]

You would think in this country if you were being accused of something, you would be allowed to know what you were being accused of so you could build a case to refute it

You'd think so. Sadly that's not always the case.

But under UKIP, you'd lose even the limited protection offered by the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

[table38]

But under UKIP, you'd lose even the limited protection offered by the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Well, ignoring for a moment the fact that it's unlikely that UKIP would ever get enough votes to form a government, as the ECHR don't seem accountable to anyone other themselves, and don't seem to be actually protecting the rights of the guy you quoted or some of the families involved in child welfare cases, perhaps that "limited protection" isn't worth having and we could have our own UK Bill of Rights instead

 

[transmanche]

it's unlikely that UKIP would ever get enough votes to form a government

And that's the only positive part of your post. The fact that you believe a 'UK Bill of Rights' would actually give us more rights than the ECHR (which was essentially Churchill's idea and written mainly by British lawyers to instill British values and 'fair play' across Europe) is sweet. Naive and misguided, but sweet.

Before this thread, I viewed UKIP as a niche group with an anti-EU agenda. Full of rhetoric and somewhat 'economical with the truth'. Having read a bit more about them, I now view them as 'BNP Lite'. In fact I'm with Cameron, when he described UKIP as full of "loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists".

Back on topic. I note that the Telegraph are quoting the foster carers as saying they didn't know about UKIP's policy on EU migrants and suggesting that they wouldn't have joined UKIP if they did.

[The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.
“I’m sat there and I’m thinking, 'What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.
Source: telegraph.co.uk​

 

[table38]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion (although if you read my post again, I was talking about accountability).

Feel free to dismiss my argument and call me names, but personally I gave up that approach to debate when I was still at school at about age 12 as it usually means you have lost the intelligent argument :roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Feel free to dismiss my argument and call me names, but personally I gave up that approach to debate when I was still at school at about age 12 as it usually means you have lost the intelligent argument :roll:

And people who post things like that, rather than an actual argument, usually have "lost" the debate...