Foster children from UKIP supporters

[flip_flop]

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

Rotherham Council have said "...the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration."

The obvious sub-text being the council feel UKIP and therefore UKIP's supporters are racist.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people manage to think that being concerned about immigration equals racism.

Leading question alert - Is the only prejudice shown in this sorry affair from Rotherham Council?

[Duncer]

They've been successfully fostering for seven years and are former Labour voters, according to tonight's BBC news.

Who are the real fascists here?

[Iluvspikey]

It's the bl**dy do-gooders again, isn't it! I don't care what anybody else says, all a child needs is to feel safe, be fed and cared for and loved. My sister fostered hundreds of children from a few nights to a few years from all ethnic backgrounds. Some said she was the nearet thing they'd ever had to a mum and she gets Christmas and birthday cards and postcards fom all over the world from them still. Seems these days you can't be too fat, too thin, smoke, go to church, be from a 'higher income bracket', or too low a bracket, or have any sort of accent or political leanings - absolutely ridiculous.

[Gromit]

the protagonists are white, then how could any party be showing racist attitudes?

If the policy is that children must be placed with couples of the same race, ethnicity or colour, as would appear to be the case in Rotherham, then that policy is clearly wrong and probably racist. The fact that the children are white does not make any difference. They were taken away from this foster couple because they were eastern European and the couple were English. If you are claiming English people cannot be racist against Polish people because they are both white, then you are wrong.

[shooty]

Heard a piece on the radio the other day about foster parents getting £450.00 per week per child, F*&k this sh!te. It's all wrong!!

[plautus]

ergo as gromit says, only immigrants can foster children immigrants.

But this is merely a minor issue: this has given to UKIP that which both the two major political parties would wish to deny them, the oxygen of publicity. If I were Cameron I should be very very worried about my prospects of even attaining a majority at the next election, let alone an absolute one. After years of being dismissed as a "one trick pony" they are now in a position to cause serious damage, even if not being elected to power themselves.

[Kromovaracun]

Much as I appreciate the difficult position that social workers find themselves in here, I can't help but agree with Gromit - it's hard to see that they made the right call here. And like anyone with difficult decisions to make, they ought to be scrutinised and held accountable to the highest degree possible. It goes with the job.

I won't lie - I'm genuinely a little shocked by this story.

[NOX]

There are two ways of looking at this and we don't know which is correct.
1. They are loving foster parents who do it out of kindness of their hearts, and who can put to oneside their political ideals about an end to multi-cuturalism etc and care for the children as if they were their own, regardless of ethnicity, in which case it's a damned shame the kids were moved.
2. They tolerate the presence of 3 children of an ethnicity they do not think should be part of the UK because it bring em in £1350 per week. If that's the case I'm glad the kids were moved.
The issues I think is without knowing these people I have no idea which is correct, but I am very uneasy about removing children from people's care because of their (reasonably) mainstream political views.

[brionon]

I wouldn't let that Ukip leader look after my Cat.

[anotheoldgit]

It would seem that Barnardos is no different, a member of UKIP is allegedly banned by Barnardo's from caring for children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238037/UKIP-leader-fury-member-banned-Barnardos-caring-children.html

[anotheoldgit]

One does not necessarily have to be a member of UKIP to face racism from certain social workers, but at least this case has a happy ending.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238075/Social-workers-tried-colour-match-beautiful-baby-like-pot-Dulux-paint-Foster-parents-say-happiness-tempered-memory-bitter-battle-Sasha.html

[bednobs]

hmm, well it's difficult to make an informed comment because i don't know all that much about ukip policies, and quite frankly don't care to find out. However, my uninformed opinion is that *if* ukip supporters think that the uk should not have immigration, so it can remain independent, then on the face of it they shouldn't be fostering children from other countries, because a logical extension is that they don't believe they should be here anyway, and could inadvertantly treat them differently from british children that they foster

[modeller]

What is all this silly nonsense #"not indigenous white British#.
Instead of saying what they are not, why not just say what they are.
What's wrong in just saying Polish or European if they must . That would not identfy them if that's the fear .

Typical civil service double speak to hide behind.
The women they interviewed tried to muddy the waters at every turn to avoid answering the questions.

[Coldicote]

It would probably help this discussion if someone clarified the objectives of UKIP. I'm not able to do so, but United Kingdon Independence Party does rather beg the question 'independent of what'?