ONTD Political

UKIP couple have foster children removed from care.

10:03 am - 11/24/2012
A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.

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

It said it had to consider the "needs of the children longer term".

The unnamed couple told the Daily Telegraph social workers had accused them of belonging to a "racist party". UKIP said it was an appalling decision.

Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC that her decision was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy, which she said calls for the end of the "active promotion of multiculturalism".

UKIP's immigration policy states the party wants an "end [to] the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", and urges Britain to leave the European Union (EU).

The Labour Party has called for an investigation into the Labour-run council's decision, after claims from UKIP it could have been politically motivated.

'Dumbfounded'
The couple, who have been approved foster parents for seven years, were eight weeks into the placement when they were approached by social workers about their membership of the party.

The wife told the Daily Telegraph: "I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has UKIP got to do with having the children removed?'

"Then one of them said, 'Well, UKIP have got racist policies.' The implication was that we were racist. [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."

The paper says the woman denied she was racist but the children were taken away by the end of the week.

She said the social worker told her: "We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of UKIP because it wouldn't have been the right cultural match."

The couple said they had been "stigmatised and slandered".

Ms Thacker said she did not regret the decision, which was reached after "a lot of soul searching".

"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."

She added during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today: "I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs.

"I have legal advice I have to follow for the placement of children and I was criticised before for not making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met.


"If the party mantra is, for example, ending the active promotion of multiculturalism I have to think about that... I have to think of their longer-term needs.

"I don't think [UKIP] are a racist party... I think they have very clear immigration and policies and I have to take all those factors into account."

She added that the children were placed with the family temporarily and were never intended to stay with the family long-term.

The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future.

'Political bias'
UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned the decision and said the council had many questions to answer.

He told the BBC he felt: "Very upset and very angry... this couple involved who have been fostering for many years and are very decent people. This was an awful shock to them, not to mention the upset for the children themselves.

"Politically, I am not surprised at all. This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils.

"We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."

He added in a statement: "They [the council] have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias?

"Publicly they must make absolutely clear the decision-making process in this case, who was responsible for this decision and why."

In a statement, Labour said: "Membership of UKIP should not block parents from adopting children. There needs to be an urgent investigation by Rotherham Borough Council into this decision."

UKIP describes itself as a "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union".

It currently has 12 MEPs and 31 councillors, with three peers in the House of Lords.

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

OP: While I fundamentally disagree with UKIP (though I find Nigel Farage occasionally entertaining in a village idiot sort of way), this is deeply worrying. Where does it all end? And surely because they have no problem adopting "not indigenous white British" kids they're not all that hardcore anyway. What did the council think they'd do, kill them so there were less immigrants?!
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
rex_dart 24th-Nov-2012 03:49 pm (UTC)
And surely because they have no problem adopting "not indigenous white British" kids they're not all that hardcore anyway. What did the council think they'd do, kill them so there were less immigrants?!

a) You don't see any problem with handing children who aren't white over to white people who are members of a party that at the very least is xenophobic and Islamophobic (and that's just from a cursory google search)?

b) Can you explain how "they can't be racist because they agreed to take care of children of color" is any different from "I'm not racist because I have black friends"?

c) Your standard of proper and adequate parenting is "as long as the parents don't murder the children"?
idemandjustice 24th-Nov-2012 04:15 pm (UTC)
These were pretty much my thoughts. I don't know much about UKIP, but what I read here leads me to the same conclusions as you.
ellonwye 24th-Nov-2012 04:14 pm (UTC)
How could they possibly be respectful to the cultural needs of those kids when they belong to a racist party? Do you not kind of see a conflict of interests here?

OP what's your stance on the fact that members of the BNP party are not generally allowed to apply for the police service?

Also can I just say that 'Where does it all end?' is a fucking ridiculous thing to say. Oh when will this persecution of racists and xenophobes end?!

Edited at 2012-11-24 04:15 pm (UTC)
poetic_pixie_13 24th-Nov-2012 04:21 pm (UTC)
I'm totally down with forcing racists and xenophobes to wear signs informing me of their bigotry /only half joking
poetic_pixie_13 24th-Nov-2012 04:20 pm (UTC)
And surely because they have no problem adopting "not indigenous white British" kids they're not all that hardcore anyway.

Before I leave what'll probably end up being my usual tl;dr... are you white?

ETA: Actually, I might not with the tl;dr. Like, I don't know how to explain/simplify the idea that racist asshats raising kids of colour would deeply affect those kids negatively and lead to them believing many disgusting untruths about themselves and fellow folks of colour. That kind of internalized hatred leads the painful, ugly bullshit that a lot of my fellow queer and trans folks sadly know all too well.

Edited at 2012-11-24 04:27 pm (UTC)
kaizopp 24th-Nov-2012 04:25 pm (UTC)
They can still foster kids, though. There's no "political bias", there's a "social services (or whatever they're called) have to be very thorough in putting kids with the right foster carers bias". I think what's going on here is a big misunderstanding (or deliberate misleading) in how the foster system is supposed to operate.
rebness 24th-Nov-2012 04:27 pm (UTC)
On their website front page, they have a disclaimer that they're not racist.

If you have to make such a disclaimer, you probably are a racist fuck.

UKIP also 'opposes multiculturalism', as if the millions of British people who are from ethnic minorities can just up and leave to some fabled land from which they all came, as if they don't fucking contribute anything to Britain's social fabric.

How could anyone, in any conscience, place children of colour with asshats who believe in such things?

UKIP is a xenophobic party who wants to rescue Britain from all those pesky foreigners in Europe, and have Britain as a white monolith. It's just the BNP with better PR, but thankfully the council have seen through this and taken steps to prevent those children being exposed to such hate. It's absolutely the right call! I don't get why anyone even thinks this should be up for debate.
poetic_pixie_13 24th-Nov-2012 04:30 pm (UTC)
UKIP also 'opposes multiculturalism', as if the millions of British people who are from ethnic minorities can just up and leave to some fabled land from which they all came, as if they don't fucking contribute anything to Britain's social fabric.

Right? It also just ignores the fact that poc have been a part of Britain's history forever and have contributed to the building of empire and nation, often through oppression, colonialism and exploitation.

The wealth and prosperity that Britain has was made at the expense of the growth and prosperity of developing nations and poc all over the world. So, like, just chill with the whole 'we built this' bullshit. Immigrants are just collecting their ancestors due.

Edited at 2012-11-24 04:32 pm (UTC)
hinoema 24th-Nov-2012 04:32 pm (UTC)
Agreeing with all the side-eyes up-thread. I just wanted to mention that there is no such thing as "indigenous British" unless they're Homo Heidelbergensis.
mangosorbet007 24th-Nov-2012 04:47 pm (UTC)
From Heidelberg, Nottinghamshire. :-)
aella_irene 24th-Nov-2012 04:34 pm (UTC)
In with everyone else to say that, um, yes, UKIP members adopting children who come under their hatred of 'immigrants'? Is bad.

(Also, I think the article suggests that the children were from a Polish background.)
jazzypom I thought they were Roma?25th-Nov-2012 03:53 pm (UTC)
I do know that there's been a surge of Romany children being over here since Hungary and Latvia joined the EU. But I could be wrong.
mangosorbet007 24th-Nov-2012 04:48 pm (UTC)
Adoption =/= fostering. Just a minor clarification. Fostering might lead to adoption but usually that is not at all the planned outcome.
nonnycat 25th-Nov-2012 08:12 am (UTC)
Thiiis.

I stopped and re-read the article because the way it's written, if you're skimming and not paying close attention, it sounds like the article is about adopted kids being taken away. The tone of the piece is sensationalist and mentions adoption in enough places for it to sound like that's what's going on if you don't catch the distinction between fostering and adoption, and it preys on the fact that a lot of people really honestly don't know much about either.
jettakd 24th-Nov-2012 05:11 pm (UTC)
if even the most well-intentioned white people can accidentally mess up raising adopted children of color that they love and adore, what makes you think a couple who's political beliefs are founded upon what basically amounts to isolation and segregation can properly raised kids of color?
thelilyqueen 24th-Nov-2012 11:29 pm (UTC)
Exactly. I may adopt someday(USian), and the idea of even a white infant/toddler from a part of the country I've never lived in is a little intimidating in terms of seeing they're properly aware of where they came from. Toss in ethnic and racial issues, and it gets way more complicated. More so *again* if they're adopted internationally at a very young age.
pleasure_past 24th-Nov-2012 05:31 pm (UTC)
Joining everyone else in saying that it was a good idea to take these kids away, and if not allowing people who hate immigrants to raise immigrants is a "slippery slope," it's one I'm willing to go a lot farther down.
ljtaylor 24th-Nov-2012 05:56 pm (UTC)
I read this over at the Fail (yeah, I know) and at the end there was an addendum about UKIP. Something like "UKIP is against multiculturalism." Yep...not racist at all.

"We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."

Ha, that old chestnut. Controlled immigration. I know a girl who is a fervent UKIP supporter and also...half Chinese. And as an expat myself, I can't believe how many fellow UK expats I've met who are have an attitude of "the only legit immigration is MY immigration! I'm white and Western European!"
keestone 25th-Nov-2012 10:28 pm (UTC)
Well naturally, I am a special snowflake! I'm different!

(I've seen the same with Irish undocumented immigrants in the US who somehow think they are totally justified in complaining that the US system doesn't have a special amnesty just for them and not for undocumented immigrants from, say, a country that actually shares a border with the US. And in case I was ever under any illusions that it might be racist . . . I've also had conversations where I pointed out to someone giving out about "non-nationals" that I'm a non-national too and been told, "well, you're different". Yeah. I'm in the same queue at immigration as everyone else. I'm pretty sure I'm not.)
mingemonster 24th-Nov-2012 06:33 pm (UTC)
I completely agree with this. It's absurd to trust someone with these kinds of views to take good care of children they want to discriminate against
ragnor144 24th-Nov-2012 06:42 pm (UTC)
I'm not happy that they can still foster white UK children. They will be given vulnerable children and teach them their anti-immigrant hate. Racists warp everything through a lens of hate, and no child should be raised that way.
moonshaz 24th-Nov-2012 11:07 pm (UTC)
This.
ceruleanst 24th-Nov-2012 06:45 pm (UTC)
To answer "what would they do": Adopting/fostering kids just to use them like little house slaves is more common than you might imagine.
akycha 25th-Nov-2012 05:55 pm (UTC)
So is outright abuse of foster children (who will believe them? They're children! Children lie!), and emotional abuse (Be grateful that we're giving you a home and feeding you, you don't even belong in this country! Name calling. Withholding of affection. Worse things.).

The right of children to have a safe and supportive environment completely trumps the desire of adults to raise children.

intrikate88 24th-Nov-2012 07:10 pm (UTC)
For the children, getting placed and yanked out of a home so quickly must definitely have been disruptive. I only wish that more consideration had been taken before they were placed so that none of this had to happen in the first place, because no, that home was clearly an unhealthy environment for them.
stevie_jane 24th-Nov-2012 07:44 pm (UTC)
Are you even aware of what you sound like? Read it back, check if you sound like a dip-shit Tory or Daily Mail reader, if answer is yes, rethink whole POV.

Bigots should never, ever get the chance to raise kids from back-grounds, countries and races they actively hate. Don't buy the bullshit that UKIP and xenophobia isn't about hate because that is straight up lies. SLIPPERY SLOPE leads to kids being kept away from damaging fuckers who will make them feel less than with their constant prejudice.
tallycola 24th-Nov-2012 08:18 pm (UTC)
Why would anyone who ISN'T racist support UKIP or the BNP? It's like people who voted for Romney because they want lower taxes, NOT because they're racist or sexist or homophobic! Yeah they just care more about money than the fundamental human rights of others. UKIP and BNP supporters can scream that they're not racist all they want but actions speak louder than words.

At the very best, children of colour raised by these people would get some serious mixed messages from them. Being pulled from the home probably isn't great for them either and I wish the child services had been more thorough in the first place. I imagine they didn't have a hard and fast policy about political affiliation before?
astragalizo 24th-Nov-2012 08:24 pm (UTC)
Where does it all end? what are you, the Daily Mail? srsly

And surely because they have no problem adopting "not indigenous white British" kids they're not all that hardcore anyway. ever heard of white man's burden?

Frankly, I have problems with all people who say that membership in racist/xenophobic parties or the espousal of racist or xenophobic views should not block people from becoming foster parents, and not only for not "ethnically British" children.

Children are not some kind of a fashionable toy or accessory that anyone should feel entitled to adopt or foster on a whim. The children have needs too, and they deserve to spend their childhood with people who will be accepting of them and positive about their ethnicity and culture. UKIP members can GTFO
lamardeuse 24th-Nov-2012 09:56 pm (UTC)
What did the council think they'd do, kill them so there were less immigrants?!

Uh, no. Though they might impact on their self-esteem through their complete lack of regard for anyone who isn't perfect white British, as their political views would indicate. Being a foster parent is not a right, and if you're judged unsuitable, then you're judged unsuitable. Bitching about it just makes you look like you're in it for the money.
ebay313 24th-Nov-2012 11:40 pm (UTC)
"What did the council think they'd do, kill them so there were less immigrants?!"

I doubt it. I would assume that the concern was that these children would be subjected to beliefs that they are inferior, do not belong in the country they live and cut off from learning (in a positive manner) about their culture which is very emotionally damaging.
lainiest 24th-Nov-2012 11:44 pm (UTC)
Having no idea how the UK political system works, is there at this point anything to stop them from changing their registered political affiliation so that they can't be "discriminated against" for being UKIP in the future?
jazzypom It depends25th-Nov-2012 03:59 pm (UTC)
If you want to be a card carrying member of a political party over here, you have to pay. I'm assuming that they're paid up members of UKIP, so it's not just them voting in the privacy of their own booth, they are on the records that they are paying into that political party.
metanoiame 25th-Nov-2012 12:19 am (UTC)
That's really, really weird that this council can apparently remove children from foster care only because of the parents' membership in a political party. Especially since it sounds like there was no research done into the home environment, how the parents treated the kids, what they actually believed (not the UKIP party platform). What's going to happen to the kids now? Shuffled around to a state agency, another random foster house, or what?

I'm genuinely surprised at the number of comments here that immediately and 100% support this idea. I could've sworn that freedom of association is a pretty important human right and should be taken into consideration...
mahsox_mahsox 25th-Nov-2012 12:44 am (UTC)
"and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future."

So what they are saying there is that they won't let the parents mess with the minds of immigrant kids or kids of colour (good choice!) but raising the local white kids to be racist is not a problem.
ellonwye 25th-Nov-2012 01:08 am (UTC)
Anybody defending the UKIP really does not know the UKIP. Removing foster children from a couple because of the political party they support? Gosh it sounds draconic doesn't it? But it's ridiculous to ignore the fact it's the UKIP.

Read the 'British Nationality' and 'Immigration and Asylum' sections of their manifesto and tell me that anybody who supports this party is a good candidate to foster those kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#British_nationality

Hm I've also just learned the party is against gay marriage, too. Fabulous!

Also can I just bold this;
"In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP, along with Euroscepticism. They concluded that "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain."
rebness 25th-Nov-2012 09:20 am (UTC)
Britain is a proud nation state, which does not wish its identity to be diluted or trivialised.

Diluted.

DILUTED.

I also like how one of their biggest aims is to get kids using imperial units again. That's of huge political importance!
violetrose 25th-Nov-2012 12:27 pm (UTC)
These people should not only be refused permission from fostering minority children, but frankly, any children at all.

Fostering children is not a right, and if you belong to a racist and quasi-fascist political party, then you really don't have the right to foster children and force your toxic views on them.

Edited at 2012-11-25 12:28 pm (UTC)
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
This page was loaded Oct 30th 2014, 6:14 pm GMT.