How does anybody feel about migrant children being taken away from a foster couple who are members of UKIP?
It's not so long ago that everyone was bashing UKIP (including on here), but suddenly everybody is calling it a mainstream and legitimate party. Slowly, slowly catchy monkey. The insinuation is almost complete even though Cameron called them bonkers and fruitlooms just a few months ago. What if these people were in the BNP? Would they be allowed to foster and would that be so good?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
But UKIP is nothing like the BNP, I think it's wrong to even mention the two party's in the same breath.
The UKIP couple have been wronged by that local council, we are all being bullied into supporting our full involvment in the EU and anyone who challenges that view is demonised and treated as some kind of racists.
But UKIP is nothing like the BNP, I think it's wrong to even mention the two party's in the same breath.
The UKIP couple have been wronged by that local council, we are all being bullied into supporting our full involvment in the EU and anyone who challenges that view is demonised and treated as some kind of racists.
From where I'm standing UKIP has just modified it's language and I can't think of anything they stand for other than anti Europe and anti migration. It's made itself an attractive option to ppl who voted Tory all their lives and think they've gone soft. If this country wasn't so strapped for cash, Ukip wouldn't have a look-in. Anyway, what about BNP, also a legitimite party?
it is a mainstream political party col,it's mad that kids who neded a home have been removed on the grounds that they have been, these foster parents we are told have a good record of caring for kids, it all makes no sense to me.
don't know if black children were fostered by a couple that were members of the BNP, would be allowed, but i doubt such a couple wouldn't take on children of black origin in the first place, but there again the BNP are bonkers and prone to violence.
But UKIP is nothing like the BNP, I think it's wrong to even mention the two party's in the same breath.
The UKIP couple have been wronged by that local council, we are all being bullied into supporting our full involvment in the EU and anyone who challenges that view is demonised and treated as some kind of racists.
From where I'm standing UKIP has just modified it's language and I can't think of anything they stand for other than anti Europe and anti migration. It's made itself an attractive option to ppl who voted Tory all their lives and think they've gone soft. If this country wasn't so strapped for cash, Ukip wouldn't have a look-in. Anyway, what about BNP, also a legitimite party?
NO BNP are not a legitimate party, and I never said they were, they are the racist party and disgusting with it.
I disagree with your views on UKIP tho.
I never even had a clue that some ppl saw UKIP in such a negative light, the European Union do royally have it off at our expense, I would have thought most sensible people from all backgrounds would have agreed with that. lol
UKIP to me are psuedo-Tories who want to get out of Europe - in fact I was surprised it wasn't them that the Tories formed an alliance with at the last election - I guess their numbers weren't big enough.
as regards this - I find it strange that a couple with a supposed good record fostering children have had them taken away because of their political leanings. By all accounts they were previously labour voters 
To play devil's advocate though, we only have half the story - Rotherham council won't be responding until tomorrow at the earliest, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
As an aside, my view on fostering/adoption is that it is most heartily driven by race on the part of councils. They insist that children must be adopted by someone of the same racial make up as the child and this leaves many, many children languishing in homes for the want of a good family to take them in.
I have a friend who is white as is her hubby and kids. Her sister married her Jamaican husband and had a couple of kids. They were a very close family. Unfortunately, the sister and her husband were killed in a car accident. Initially the kids were placed with my friend as they were their closest relatives. When they applied to have them permanently, they were refused on the grounds that foster parents of the same racial mix were considered more suitable than actual family members who the kids were close to. So a loving family were denied the right to their family members because effectively, they were white. It happens far too much and it's always the kids in care that suffer. I have no love for social workers and this race driven agenda
UKIP to me are psuedo-Tories who want to get out of Europe - in fact I was surprised it wasn't them that the Tories formed an alliance with at the last election - I guess their numbers weren't big enough.
as regards this - I find it strange that a couple with a supposed good record fostering children have had them taken away because of their political leanings. By all accounts they were previously labour voters
To play devil's advocate though, we only have half the story - Rotherham council won't be responding until tomorrow at the earliest, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
As an aside, my view on fostering/adoption is that it is most heartily driven by race on the part of councils. They insist that children must be adopted by someone of the same racial make up as the child and this leaves many, many children languishing in homes for the want of a good family to take them in.
I have a friend who is white as is her hubby and kids. Her sister married her Jamaican husband and had a couple of kids. They were a very close family. Unfortunately, the sister and her husband were killed in a car accident. Initially the kids were placed with my friend as they were their closest relatives. When they applied to have them permanently, they were refused on the grounds that foster parents of the same racial mix were considered more suitable than actual family members who the kids were close to. So a loving family were denied the right to their family members because effectively, they were white. It happens far too much and it's always the kids in care that suffer. I have no love for social workers and this race driven agenda
USA is one country tho, the United States of Europe isn't one country, far too many self interests to make the EU work, and we will always get screwed over by them.
Anyway, I agree with everyone on here about the couple, this does seem very harsh.
I don't think any agendas agreed by councils (of any political bias) should have anything to do with fostering children in care. A loving home is what they need and crave and that is exactly what they should get, irrespective of race, colour or creed
There will never be a United States of Europe.....far too much self interest involved for that
A federation of STATES...but is basicly one country.
Problem with most of these stories is that we only ever hear one side, (the side of those allegedly wronged,) and the council can't really respond in full due to confidentiality. However, if it's true, and there was nothing to suggest that the foster carers political beliefs was impacting on the care and welfare of the children , then someone has made a v poor decision.
UKIP to me are psuedo-Tories who want to get out of Europe - in fact I was surprised it wasn't them that the Tories formed an alliance with at the last election - I guess their numbers weren't big enough.
as regards this - I find it strange that a couple with a supposed good record fostering children have had them taken away because of their political leanings. By all accounts they were previously labour voters
To play devil's advocate though, we only have half the story - Rotherham council won't be responding until tomorrow at the earliest, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
As an aside, my view on fostering/adoption is that it is most heartily driven by race on the part of councils. They insist that children must be adopted by someone of the same racial make up as the child and this leaves many, many children languishing in homes for the want of a good family to take them in.
I have a friend who is white as is her hubby and kids. Her sister married her Jamaican husband and had a couple of kids. They were a very close family. Unfortunately, the sister and her husband were killed in a car accident. Initially the kids were placed with my friend as they were their closest relatives. When they applied to have them permanently, they were refused on the grounds that foster parents of the same racial mix were considered more suitable than actual family members who the kids were close to. So a loving family were denied the right to their family members because effectively, they were white. It happens far too much and it's always the kids in care that suffer. I have no love for social workers and this race driven agenda
Now that's just barmy
What about a couple of BNP foster parents?
I do actually think that it might be a stupid move by a Labour council, but as I said up there. UKIP used to have a devil's tail, now it's acceptable. Why?
I have a friend who is white as is her hubby and kids. Her sister married her Jamaican husband and had a couple of kids. They were a very close family. Unfortunately, the sister and her husband were killed in a car accident. Initially the kids were placed with my friend as they were their closest relatives. When they applied to have them permanently, they were refused on the grounds that foster parents of the same racial mix were considered more suitable than actual family members who the kids were close to. So a loving family were denied the right to their family members because effectively, they were white. It happens far too much and it's always the kids in care that suffer. I have no love for social workers and this race driven agenda
That's heartbreaking and an utter disgrace.
I can't type what I hope happens to whomever made that decision.
My view is that such things should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
I think the council are right to be concerned that the cultural needs may not be met and it's a fair assumption to think that UKIP types are typically inclined to take a view that assimilation is desirable over multi-culturalism.
Based on the evidence I have read (right wing Sundays admittedly) the couple were not what I'd usually expect from UKIP types. After the council were told they were failing the kids' needs, they assigned the kids as emergency adoptees to the couple.
The couple's conduct was described as exemplary. They looked for a school to match the religion of the children and were encouraging the kids to talk in their native language and were picking up bits of it themselves. On the face of it, they sound just the thing a council supporting multiculturalism should approve of.
UKIP used to have a devil's tail, now it's acceptable. Why?
Probably because UKIP were never as bad as some thought in the first place? some with a political agenda used to label UKIP in a negative light because they were scared of UKIP's possible popularity, and of course we cant have anyone speaking common sense and dare I say..."the truth" about the EU. 
So it's official guys, only Labour voters can now foster children, only their lovely fluffy values are to be allowed....soon it'll be Tory voters who are stopped from fostering, and then anyone else with views that the PC brigade deem to be "dangerous"
I think religious people are far more dangerous to the upbringing of children than those with political beliefs, how come it's ok to get young children who haven't got the mind and thoughts of their own yet to follow a certain religion of the parents choice.?.
UKIP used to have a devil's tail, now it's acceptable. Why?
Probably because UKIP were never as bad as some thought in the first place? some with a political agenda used to label UKIP in a negative light because they were scared of UKIP's possible popularity, and of course we cant have anyone speaking common sense and dare I say..."the truth" about the EU.
So it's official guys, only Labour voters can now foster children, only their lovely fluffy values are to be allowed....soon it'll be Tory voters who are stopped from fostering, and then anyone else with views that the PC brigade deem to be "dangerous"
I think religious people are far more dangerous to the upbringing of children than those with political beliefs, how come it's ok to get young children who haven't got the mind and thoughts of their own yet to follow a certain religion of the parents choice.?.
Councils have to be cautious.
UKIP on the economy, are the most far right party in the UK. They are typically nationalistic, right wing in their racial politics, staunchly Anglocentric and hark back to the days of the British Empire as a golden age.
There's a problem with that thinking when dealing with the rights of ethnic children.
I think you have to realise that if you are the type who rails against multiculturalism and argues for assimilation, then you are not the type to respect the cultural rights of kids of ethnic backgrounds. Councils need to be cautious that foster parents are not on a mission to make kids their projects to assimilate.
Those foster parents were not on that mission, so the decision was wrong.
UKIP's flat rate income tax policies will be the biggest wealth grab by the rich ever. UKIP are plutocrats using nationalism to work a con job on 90% of the electorate. Ordinary people will be much worse off under UKIP, they will be considerably worse off even assuming UKIPs claims for money saved by not paying for EU membership are 100% correct.
What about a couple of BNP foster parents?
I do actually think that it might be a stupid move by a Labour council, but as I said up there. UKIP used to have a devil's tail, now it's acceptable. Why?
i don't really know why you have this BNP type of impression with UKIP, I know baroness warsi tried to link the two when she was feeling peeved about the election result, but i think for the great majority of people UKIP are not the BNP in disguise.
UKIP was and is essentially anti european and anti open door EU immigration policy.
BNP are racist thugs who want a whiter england and preferably a whiter world.
What about a couple of BNP foster parents?
I do actually think that it might be a stupid move by a Labour council, but as I said up there. UKIP used to have a devil's tail, now it's acceptable. Why?
i don't really know why you have this BNP type of impression with UKIP, I know baroness warsi tried to link the two when she was feeling peeved about the election result, but i think for the great majority of people UKIP are not the BNP in disguise.
UKIP was and is essentially anti european and anti open door EU immigration policy.
BNP are racist thugs who want a whiter england and preferably a whiter world.
Nothing to do with any impression. I simply would like someone to tell me if they were so upset if the SS had taken the children from a couple who were members of the BNP, which is as legitimate as UKIP. Seats in councils, the London Assrmbly and 1 MEP. As I said above, it was only a few short months ago that Cameron called UKIP members fruitloons and bonkers. Only a few short years ago, Farage had to explain the difference between his party and the BNP at every event. This morning I hear that Cameron has been advised to come to some agreement with him. Crazy.
I think, in recent years, Nigel Flange has done an amazing job of sanitising UKIP's public image, mainly by sticking to his anti-EU rhetoric, whatever subject is being discussed.
However, their stance against multiculturalism, and immigration in general, is still clearly high up on their agenda. The openly racist and xenophobic Robert Kilroy-Silk left the party, after failing to take over the leadership and take it even further to the right, but the fact remains that he was eagerly welcomed into the party and helped them gain a foothold amongst voters. At the time, many thought that their support was coming over from the BNP, but Labour and Conservative supporters were also attracted by their anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism policies. No doubt, many of their supporters are racist, but they also attract those who come from immigrant families, but want the door shut firmly behind them, and those who are mainly concerned with EU citizens coming over here and 'stealing' our jobs.
Mr Pinto's leaflet is a good example of how immigration is kept high on the agenda, when looking for new recruits to their party -
As for the council's decision? Rock and a hard place comes to mind. If anything had gone wrong with this fostering, they would have been pilloried for placing EU immigrant children, with supporters of an anti-EU immigration party. Imagine the outcry?!
I think, in recent years, Nigel Flange has done an amazing job of sanitising UKIP's public image, mainly by sticking to his anti-EU rhetoric, whatever subject is being discussed.
However, their stance against multiculturalism, and immigration in general, is still clearly high up on their agenda. The openly racist and xenophobic Robert Kilroy-Silk left the party, after failing to take over the leadership and take it even further to the right, but the fact remains that he was eagerly welcomed into the party and helped them gain a foothold amongst voters. At the time, many thought that their support was coming over from the BNP, but Labour and Conservative supporters were also attracted by their anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism policies. No doubt, many of their supporters are racist, but they also attract those who come from immigrant families, but want the door shut firmly behind them, and those who are mainly concerned with EU citizens coming over here and 'stealing' our jobs.
Mr Pinto's leaflet is a good example of how immigration is kept high on the agenda, when looking for new recruits to their party -
As for the council's decision? Rock and a hard place comes to mind. If anything had gone wrong with this fostering, they would have been pilloried for placing EU immigrant children, with supporters of an anti-EU immigration party. Imagine the outcry?!
Exactly, Blizz, that's the crux of it.
UKIP are a party that is actively against multiculturalism and so are their grass roots supporters. Where does assimilation end and "If they won't assimilate, they're not welcome in this country" begin? The council would not be doing their jobs if they didn't have concerns over UKIP members' motivations. However, having confirmed the exemplary record of the couple with the children, that should have been the end of it.
Well one of their members set his stall out today 
From Sky news
http://news.sky.com/story/1016...ption-is-child-abuse
Mr McKenzie says placing children with homosexual couples is wrong
A leading member of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has called for a ban on gay people adopting.
Winston McKenzie, the culture spokesman for UKIP, said placing children with gay or lesbian couples was "child abuse".
The former boxer, who is standing in the Croydon North by-election on Thursday, told the Metro newspaper: "To say to a child, 'I am having you adopted by two men who kiss regularly but don't worry about it' - that is abuse.
"It is a violation of a child's human rights because that child has no opportunity to grow up under normal circumstances."
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights charity Stonewall, replied: "These 19th Century views are not acceptable in the 21st Century."
Mr McKenzie's comments come days after Rotherham Council removed three children from a South Yorkshire couple because of their membership of UKIP.
Social workers said they were concerned about the children's "cultural and ethnic needs".
The Labour-controlled local authority has launched an investigation into the move following criticism from across the political spectrum.
Council leader Roger Stone has offered no apology to the couple UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned it as "outrageous", while Education Secretary Michael Gove said the decision was "indefensible".
The unnamed husband and wife have said council leaders should consider resigning after they failed to apologise for their actions.
They told the Daily Telegraph they felt "slandered and besmirched" after social workers took the ethnic minority children away.
"They should be considering their position," the husband said.
"These are people on incredible salaries who are paid to make responsible decisions but they can't do it.
"It's completely baffling that they just can't put their hands up. They say this is a complex case but we don't agree. It's very simple."
In his statement on Monday, council leader Roger Stone said he had received an initial report from his officials on what he described as a "very complex case".
He said: "The Secretary of State for Education has asked for an inquiry relating to this case over the weekend. The council welcomes this. We will work very closely with and give full co-operation to the department."
Well, they haven't lost the ability to put their foot in it. ^^^^
I find it depressing that so many ppl just see UKIP as a mainstream party now. Maybe my fascist radar is more sensative because I'm German.
Well, they haven't lost the ability to put their foot in it. ^^^^
I find it depressing that so many ppl just see UKIP as a mainstream party now. Maybe my fascist radar is more sensative because I'm German.
You're not alone in finding it depressing, cologne. I actually find it quite scary that people don't look deeply into what they're voting for when it comes to ANY party or candidate, and you don't have to look that deep to see how poisonous UKIP are.
