Another example of political correctness gone mad

I find it difficult to believe we have people like this in decision making positions. Rotherham council hang your heads in shame. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

 

Dispicable. They should be sacked.

 

Out of interest, what's 'politically correct' about that story? I don't see it, I really don't. I don't think the decision has been made to be politically correct, I think they are doing (rightly or wrongly) what they think is best for 3 non-white-Anglo-Saxon foster children.

 

Best thing would be to remove Thacker's children(assuming she has some) from her care for HER political views!!

 

The interesting line in the article is that the lady responsible said she was operating by legal rules. I sense this goes above the council.

 

I don't have any trouble believing it, such politically correct (though whose politics God only knows) thinking is increasingly prevalent in many public organisations, and this is only the start. You have to think the right way or you don't 'get on'. Orwell would be both intrigued and saddened to see many of his ideas made real this way.

Still on the plus side, the morons who made this decision, and indeed those who before them have so insidiously laid the groundwork and established the culture within which such a decision could be made rationally, rather than deemed an act of lunacy, will I'm sure go far in their chosen sector.

Such culture, ideas, and thinking are of course the product of left-wing ideologies which permeate (and in fairness to the idiots who slavishly adhere to it even thought it flies in the face of any sense of reality) intimidate at all levels of the public sector. And to think that the left have the nerve to sometimes describe their opponents as Nazis!

 

The problem is UKIP struggle to form a consistent message as to what they stand for because to become a bigger party they need to gain support from the BNP. Consequently their actual aims become overhyped in xenophobic rhetoric when that isn't necessarily their beliefs.

I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but there is certainly a rationality in not letting members of a political party who are anti-immigrantion foster immigrants.

Social workers are damned whatever they do. When they make decisions to remove kids they are criticised as heavy handed, when they don't incidents such as Baby P lead to them being vilified. The number one consideration has to be the children. They may have misunderstood UKIP, but UKIP create that confusion with the language they sometimes use in trying to broaden their electoral appeal

 

I just feel it is a decision made to tick the ludicrous politically correct boxes of a left wing agenda. This couple are giving children a safe and loving place to live yet they are told they can't have a positive influence on the welfare of children who aren't white Anglo Saxon children. I can't see any genuine welfare or safety reasons to have removed these children.

 

That first sentence sounds like something straight out of the Daily Mail.

I agree it's f.cking barmy but they're signed up to a party that states immigration should not be promoted. They've then been given immigrant children. That's not political correctness, I just think they're doing what they think is best.

 

That's because there self-evidenly aren't any genuine reasons. Another entirely innocent party demonised thanks to the increasingly spiteful and poisonous left.

 

In fairness Mario we don't know any of the details of the case except the headline. I know quite a few social workers and the pressure that guarranteeing children's welfare brings is staggering and an incredibly fine line to walk. Added to which their case loads have gone through the roof due to the funding cuts. Forget Keith's job, that's proper pressure

 

But UKIP are not anti immigration, their policy is controlled immigration which is not a racist policy and certainly does not make this couple racist or unfit to look after these children.

What really annoys me is that this ludicrous policy is saying this couple are unfit to provide for the welfare of these children due to them being a member of a legitimate political party yet a gay couple wouldn't be questioned on the grounds of their sexuality. This isn't a homophobic rant by the way I am just looking at the agendas of the loony left.

 

I'm not questioning the difficult jobs that social workers have to do and how the welfare of the child has to be paramount but this couple have been fostering for years; giving children the love, safety and stability they need. Removing children from good homes just makes their jobs more difficult IMO.

 

But you're using the wrong analogy Mario. A homophobic couple wouldn't be allowed to foster a gay child.

UKIP's problem is the clarity of their message is absolutely lost in anti-immigration language even if it isn't their stated aim because they need votes from the far right even though they aren't necessarily a far right party. This is what creates the confusion.

I actually think UKIP will tone down this element of their politics because they have a real opportunity to gain significant votes from the Eurosceptic conservatives.

 

All depends on what Dave comes back with this weekend. UKIP will be the third party in 2015, Lib Dems lost forever.

 

Absolute crap. UKIP is about Little England.

Whilst we are on it I do support withdrawal from the EU.

 

Can you name me some more "entirely innocent party demonised thanks to the increasingly spiteful and poisonous left"?

Pleads say EDL. I mean English Democrats.

 

UKIP are not racist so can't be compared to a homophobe. My analogy was that neither sexuality or political view stop you from being a good parent. Supporting UKIP was not justification to remove these children from looks like a good and stable home. Stability seems to have been reduced to a secondary consideration in favour of a political agenda.

 

That couple who got nobbled for not allowing the homosexual couple to stay at their B&B.

 

Gillian Duffy