This Joyce Thacker woman Re the UKip/foster issue....

...Sounds like the council are trying to 'gloss over' things. No apology forthcoming. IF she made the decision alone then she either needs suspending and retraining or sacking. Simply that!

 

Ukip is he the big ******* defender we have been after.

 

I hate to see people lose their jobs but this decision is so fundamentally wrong that I believe the only option is to sack this woman. There has to be a clear message sent out that this kind of decision will not be tolerated. If at her level of responsibilty she needs retraining to make a decision like this then she is definitely in the wrong job.

 

Despite the rights and wrongs of this it has been fetched to the fore through political parties **** stirring and attacking the favourites to win, cos they want to get their grubby greedy little noses into the Westminster trough.

Politicians no matter what colour all **** int same pot.

 

DOn't think it's as straightforwards as they were taken off them cos they were UKIP members by the sounds of it - that issue is simply the headline. It's not a policy that all UKIP members cannot Foster kids, but in this individual circumstance it may have been the correct decision. All this bandwagon jumping seems to be all too easy these days!

 

Rubbish! When this first surfaced the woman went in front of the cameras and stated she had to make a decision to safeguard the children and then stated thee foster parents were Ukip members and that UKip stated policies were against immigration and the implication they were a racist party and the children in question were immigrants. You can't get clearer than that. The council are now trying to make out it is a complex issue to protect her and cover their backs.

 

PS -They (the council) will be running scared since the foster carers apparently have been doing so successfully for a number of years. Using the current argument implies that by being members of UKip they are effectively racist and that the welfare of the immigrant children in their care is in doubt. Unless publicly clarified the head of childrens welfare statement in front of the camera could, almost certainly be construed as slanderous and could lead to legal action against the council.

 

think you're right there tekkytyke,,if there had been other issues the council would have raised them before now.

 

I think the blanket condemnation by all political parties has been political opportunism and populism at it's worst. As in the previous thread I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I'm staggered that not one politician has made the point that there could be more to the case, or that there may be some sense in the idea that members of an anti-imigration party my not be the best people to foster immigrants.

Interestingly in 2006 Cameron was refering to UKIP as "sort of a bunch of ... fruit cakes and loonies and closet racists mostly". So is he happy with fruitcake closet racists fostering immigrant children, or was he simpy happy to demonise UKIP previously as they are a massive threat to his party who are being torn about between teh pro and anti-Europe factions?

But apparently it's all the 'loony left' to blame

 

No its not the headline, it is the fundamental reason for the removal of the children. The couple involved have been fostering for seven years and appear to have an unblemished record yet the reason stated by Thacker was that their membership of Ukip and their political beliefs meant they couldn't provide for the cultural needs of these children but up until their membership was disclosed they were deemed to be fit and proper.

 

So you agree with the principle that belonging to any mainstream political party means you can be excluded from certain activities/occupations/associations etc.

I sincerely hope you don't hold any postion of authority or is it that you are Labour thru' and thru' and any labour council in your eyes can do no wrong?

 

I think the question that should be asked is why were they placed with them in the first place unless it was in an emergency. Anyone would think there was a bye election going off........!!

 

How was the matter considered racist? Have New Labour reinvented the meaning of the word? Eastern Europeans are Caucasian not Mongols, Negros et al. The word is bandied about too much these days,

 

Absolutely - just some Labour voters on here cannot stomach the idea that a Labour Council policymaker could harbour such an irrational or dangerous ideology. What next? Religious persecution (although I do have trouble with JWs who could possibly prevent a fostered child from having an emergency transfusion or certain treatments in an accident due to their extreme beliefs).

Where do you draw the line? Should an EDL or BNP couple be denied the right to foster? In many instances they would probably exclude themselves anyway. Currently foster parents (as can natural parents) can foist their own extreme religious beliefs on fostered or adopted children. Should councils also exclude them???
Every case should be treated separately without prejudice and the blame culture should cease when things do (as they will on rare occasions) go wrong. In the final analysis the proximate cause of homeless children is usually down to the original natural parents who either cannot or will not accept responsibility for bringing a life into the world. people seem to forget that in the headlong rush to blame the authorities when things do go wrong.

 

I think you've taken a very bizarre interpretation of my post

 

No. You state:
"....or that there may be some sense in the idea that members of an anti-imigration party my not be the best people to foster immigrants."
That statement makes it clear you think there is some merit in considering membership of a political party as a factor in considering someone's suitability to foster or adopt.

 

What another strange post! As I've pointed out elsewhere I think you'll find David Cameron has probably the strongest views on UKIP (which I don't think he believes but is being expedient given the ideological vacuum that he is).

You then say every case should be treated differently without prejudice or blame despite knowing any of the facts of this particular case. You then blame natural parents without any knowledge of why the children are in foster care. Maybe the parents were killed in a road accident? If you were a European migrant would you want your children fostered in that instance by members of an anti-immigration party?

And then conclude the rant against the local authority with a criticism of people joining 'the headlong rush to blame the authorities when things do go wrong'

 

err.... calling someone Irish a 'Mick' or a German a 'Kraut' is considered racist abuse these days. Nothing to do with colour of skin. (I don't really agree with most of this) Racist insults should not really be about the actual words used but the intent behind them. Many 'jokes' ( albeit sometimes in bad taste or badly timed are considered racist/offensive by the 'indignation by proxy' brigade are just that - 'jokes' (hence the phrase offence TAKEN rather than given).
I have heard jokes about disabled people that would make your toes curl EXCEPT I was told them BY disabled people I used to eork with who are often perplexed when able bodied people find them offensive.

 

No-one has said that a member of UKIP are unsuitbale to adopt. The question is whether their political views affect their ability to provide an environment which is in the best interest of these particular children.

So you think there is absolutely no debate to be had as to whether a member of a party that is anti-immigration and multi-cuturalism is suitable to care for immigrants? Because that's the only political debate that I can see being closed down here. Personally, and without knowing any of the facts, I think it probably was the wrong decision, but I can say both sides of the argument.

 

I cannot argue with you as your arguments are irrational and you have not answered the main thrust of my argument that you seem to agree with the principle of excluding people on the grounds of political party membership as being sound.
FINALLY: "If you were a European migrant would you want your children fostered in that instance by members of an anti-immigration party?"

!!!! NO!! I would be doing everything in my power to bring my OWN children up and not expect the state to bail me out of whatever mess I have got myself in to. before you say it is probably 'not their fault' - The authorities would do everything in their power not to separate natural parents from their children unless there were very strong grounds for taking them into care.