|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UKIP membership a bar to fostering
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
Story here A reasonable defense of the council position is made in a video interview about halfway down the page
I am a foster carer and an active member of a political party (Labour) and I would not like to think that allegiance to a mainstream political party was a bar to fostering. Just as I would not like to think that belonging to a religious group would be an automatic bar to fostering. However I think that views I hold may make me less suitable than others to look after certain children. In this case one must ask how would the self esteem of children from Eastern Europe be affected by reading UKIP material such as this If this couple were looking after a child from any BME group I would want the child to feel that their birth culture had value, imho that would involve promoting multicuturalism.
I think those fostering need to accept that the needs of the child are key not the feelings of foster carers. I know the feelings, close to those of bereavement, when a child is moved especially when you don't agree with the discision but in the end the needs of the children are the priority and social workers may sometimes make mistakes but they are trying to do the very best they can for the children they care for.
In short without knowing all the details I have some sympathy with Rotherham Council's position, I agree that an investigation is needed and these issues need full and open discussion.
[ 28. January 2013, 23:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I hear you.
I don't believe people who disagree with my political views should be allowed to raise children either.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
In fact, only right-on lefties should be allowed to foster, because we know that everyone else is a frothing, irrational bigot (we read it in the Graun, it must be true), who is not safe in the presence of children.
This is a very prejudiced and arrogant view, but unfortunately there's a fair bit of it about. It would be rather topical to the "Is moral vanity ... " thread, had that not been closed.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Exactly
Even the Tories can't be trusted to foster children. They'll send them to those posh public schools followed by Oxbridge and those poor children will come out a bunch of elitist snobs who hate the poor and working class. No, only Labour party members should be allowed to raise children.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
So Sailor, you would place a child with a family who publicly stated that they believed that the child and their parents should never have been allowed in the country in the first place?
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Ship's right-on leftie calling in to say that it is, prima facie a bloody awful decision. Had the parents been racists then irrespective of the ethnicity of the children they probably ought not to be fosterers, but we cannot be sure that they even agree with the two year old policy statement to which a link is provided in the OP.
And a pox on the politicians too, with a by-election coming up on Thursday in, of all places, Rotherham.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
So Sailor, you would place a child with a family who publicly stated that they believed that the child and their parents should never have been allowed in the country in the first place?
First, where is the evidence that they did or would say any such thing?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Chief of Sinners
That was a very interesting and thoughtful OP, and I do so much admire and respect those who take on the job of foster caring. I'm going to be listening to the Radio 4 programme tomorrow, at 1:45 p.m. I think.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
In this case one must ask how would the self esteem of children from Eastern Europe be affected by reading UKIP material such as this
I was talking to my Polish neighbour recently and he was moaning to me about immigration. He works hard and pays his taxes but doesn't like other migrants coming to this country and getting council flats. So perhaps the Eastern European children might actually grow up to agree with the UKIP policy?
I'm struggling to see the controversial nature of the policies in this link, which contains such draconian demands such as that immigrants must, er, obey the law. Saying that you want to limit immigration to 50,000 people per year is hardly the same as 'send the buggers back'.
I'm also not sure what is meant by 'multiculturalism', which seems to mean different things depending on who uses the word. One meaning seems to be 'Britain has people in it from different countries but that doesn't necessarily preclude there being a national identity' and another meaning seems to be 'Britain has people in it from different countries and we must not only celebrate those difference but also not do anything to integrate people to forge a single national identity'. I suspect (though I don't know) that UKIP had the latter idea in mind while the idiot from Rotherham council had the former definition in mind.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
It would be rather topical to the "Is moral vanity ... " thread, had that not been closed.
This is a misunderstanding.
I just put up a general guideline because recent contributions had got Hellish (i.e. digging at the person not the arguments). The thread is still open for normal Purgatorial use.
If it were closed, it would have a lock symbol against it the thread would say so at the top.
B62, Purg Host
[ 24. November 2012, 16:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
So Sailor, you would place a child with a family who publicly stated that they believed that the child and their parents should never have been allowed in the country in the first place?
Where does UKIP policy say that?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That would rather depend on the children's exact situation - which we don't know.
I would have an issue with children in state care, being placed with foster carers who were members of the BNP (who did for a while have an MEP so could probably describe themselves as mainstream). So I guess it is a question of where you draw the line.
Foster parents are usually paid for their their role, and are - in effect - employees. So imagine their contract might require them to commit to equal opportunities policies etc. Not sure that membership of UKIP would violate this though.
[ 24. November 2012, 17:50: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Given the disdain some lefties have towards conservatives, perhaps members of the Labour Party shouldn't be allowed to raise children. Sure, not all of them are self-righteous bigots who look with disdain on the roughly half of the population who don't vote the same way as they do. I just don't think we can risk putting impressionable children in such an environment. Maybe, it depends on the children's exact situation. I just don't know. This is such a damn hard conundrum.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
So Sailor, you would place a child with a family who publicly stated that they believed that the child and their parents should never have been allowed in the country in the first place?
That a person may disagree with a particular political decision/piece of legislation, does not necessarily and automatically mean they refuse to recognize/disobey it in practice.
Examples:
*I* think it's a bad thing to commit robbery. In concrete reality, I cannot, according to law (and would not in any case), treat those who have been jailed for such an offence differently from those who haven't.
Paramedics of my acquaintance are unanimous in their condemnation and abhorrence of drunken drivers. Yet they do not leave them to die ("just desserts" in some people's opinion) when they are involved in RTAs - they do their job; any subsequent enquiry is for the police and courts.
*I* think the laws that outlaw cannabis use are ridiculous. However, I do not *grow my own* (mind you, I can't even keep a tomato plant alive ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
From the accounts I've read, these people have been good foster-carers for a number of years with no complaints/issues. There has been nothing to suggest that they are reading race-hate tracts to the children in their care or otherwise attempting to shame them for their background.
Considering the historic and still-current scandals of LACK of care/supervision in the so-called *Care* service provided for children, I would not have thought that membership of a non-proscribed British political party should have any validity in a case to remove foster children.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I bet this story is a lot less straightforward than current reports suggest.
But if it is, Rotherham Council children's services have just got it wrong.
Foster parents who sign up politically to draconian immigration policies can hardly complain if they get tested pretty hard on any duty of care guidelines to do with cultural or racial bias.
But that's quite different to finding them guilty of potential harm without any such practical testing. That would be jumping to conclusions, and particularly unfair to children already in that foster care relationship.
[ 24. November 2012, 18:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
*tested*, yes, Barnabas; having the children simply removed without adequate (or, it appears, any) investigation is another matter entirely.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
C'mon, Beeswax Altar, we all know that Tories eat children for breakfast. So do UKIP members, but at least the Tories have the decency to stun them first ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Why would they test them harder than members of any other party? Some Labour Party members favor immigration restrictions as well. Why hold members of one political party to a different standard than another? Sounds like discrimination to me.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar
UKIP wish to repeal (note, not amend) the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is concerned with enforcing under English Law the European Convention on Human Rights. Here it is.
Here are the provisions of that convention.
Note Articles 9 and 14 in particular.
Worth some pointed questions, don't you think, about the attitudes of foster parents towards such things. Of course they may not realise the implications. But that can be tested as well.
I don't think Tories or Liberals or Labour want, as a matter of party policy, to repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act. But if any of them do, then in my book they would deserve the same treatment.
I think the term draconian is reasonable to apply at least to that element of the immigration policy. YMMV.
[ 24. November 2012, 19:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think it is important to point out this is not about whether this couple can adopt children.
It is about whether they can be employed by the state to care for children who are under the protection of the state. It is about whether they can do a specific job.
There are restrictions in the UK with regard to politics and public service. Certain civil servants are not permitted to make public statements about their personal political views for example. And when providing a service on behalf of the state, for example teaching, you are not allowed to try to push your political views on those you are providing the service to. That seems reasonable to me.
I can imagine that one might be concerned about placing, say; the children of an illegal immigrant who had just been jailed for a violent crime, in the care of someone who chose to spend their weekends at anti-immigration demos. Regardless of that being entirely legal conduct. You might consider that it presented a conflict of interest. (I am not suggesting this is true of this specific couple, just a hypothetical scenario.)
It would need good knowledge of the people concerned and some careful thought.
That said, we really don't know enough about either the circumstances of the children or the couple concerned to reach a judgement. We also have in detail, only their side of the story in the press. I think that it is entirely right that there should be an investigation into this, but it would help not to simply assume the council is playing silly buggers.
There is a desperate shortage of both foster carers and suitable residential places for children in care, the social workers involved know this - they must have been seriously worried to move the children so fast (even it subsequently becomes clear that was a misguided fear.)
[ETA We also don't know if the children's birth parents had expressed concerns about this.]
[ 24. November 2012, 19:32: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Beeswax Altar
UKIP wish to repeal (note, not amend) the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is concerned with enforcing under English Law the European Convention on Human Rights. Here it is.
Here are the provisions of that convention.
Note Articles 9 and 14 in particular.
Worth some pointed questions, don't you think, about the attitudes of foster parents towards such things.
Not really. I imagine (but cannot be sure) that most people who join UKIP do so because of their main policy: withdrawal from the European Union.
Just because one opposes the Human Rights Act doesn't mean one opposes Human Rights. Assuming the couple were otherwise normal people (aside from the fact of their UKIP membership) I'm struggling to see the relevance of all this.
I agree that there are two sides to every story, but in interviews Rotherham Council seem to struggle to come up with a reason for not allowing this couple to foster, other than UKIP membership per se. Their argument (such as it is) seems very weak so far.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Beeswax Altar
UKIP wish to repeal (note, not amend) the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is concerned with enforcing under English Law the European Convention on Human Rights
Note Articles 9 and 14 in particular.
Worth some pointed questions, don't you think, about the attitudes of foster parents towards such things.
So what? Many Tories want to repeal it too. Many members of the public want to. Are you seriously suggesting their ability to foster children (assuming they are able willing and suitable in all other respects) should be called into question? And we seemed to be able to foster children well enough in this country before the HRA .
[ 24. November 2012, 19:46: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Outside the format of a case review*, they can't talk to the press about any details of the case though. So it is always going to sound weak. Frankly, I am surprised the press managed to get any comment at all.
(*Hence need for a formal review.)
[ 24. November 2012, 19:44: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There really has to be more to it than we can see from the one side given. I would be surprised to hear that party political allegiance was more than briefly glanced at in foster care situations unless it was a particularly strong party political allegiance, and it was affecting their ability to foster in some way.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dv
Shipmate
# 15714
|
Posted
Probably something to do with Rotherham's Joyce Thacker being part of the "Common Purpose" lefty cabal. An idealogue with an axe to grind.
Posts: 70 | From: Lancs UK | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Barnabas62:
UKIP wish to repeal (note, not amend) the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is concerned with enforcing under English Law the European Convention on Human Rights.
Put me in the so what category. Why it be surprising that Euro-skeptic political party has a problem with a law telling English courts to give consideration to the decision of a European court? I find it odd that people so concerned with a document guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom from discrimination have no problem with discriminating against those who don't share their political views.
[ 24. November 2012, 20:23: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
At worst, this is an isolated wrong decision and not likely to become general policy. However, I very much doubt that this is the full story or anything even close to it. Children get moved to new carers all the time, for a variety of reasons, and very rarely anything as straightforward or silly as this appears to be. But because social services are bound by client confidentiality, they're not at liberty to tell the press the details of their decisions - which is as it should be. But it does mean that these stories, when they hit the media, are always one-sided. I can imagine a situation in which there were real concerns about the kids, the kids were unhappy or there was a poor fit between carers and children. So the kids got moved and the foster carers presented it as a straightforward unreasonable criticism because that's what a lot of people do in these circumstances. This may be the case, or it may just be that the social workers made a stupid decision - but we'll never know.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Safeguarded under Articles 9-11 and 14, BA. The exceptions in Article 10 are a proviso to stop you or anyone else abusing the Article 9-11 and 14 rights of anyone else.
What's wrong with that? You'd have a claim up to European Court level against any National Government which did abuse you simply because of your political views. The UKIP couple might have a case, so far as I can see, even if the UK government blocks it.
That's OK, isn't it?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What's wrong with the UK passing laws against discrimination and those laws being interpreted by UK courts based on UK jurisprudence? Why bring Europe or a European court into it at all? You'll probably say something about about possible bias in UK courts and discrimination against minorities. But, why should Euro-skeptics believe the decisions of a European court are less biased than those of English courts? The people in the OP can't foster children because they have less faith in Europe than Labour Party members? Those awful people. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Would you foster black children with a Ku Klux Khan member ? It is essentially being argued (according to the parents version in the press) that the situation was read, as being a less intense version of doing that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Members of the KKK wouldn't volunteer to foster black children because it would constitute mixing the races. Foster parents who did would be branded race traitors by the Klan. Should Latinos who voted Republican not be allowed to foster Latino children because of the Republican Party's stated position on immigration? Would good white, progressives be a better choice? Good luck getting either the Democrats or the Republicans to support something like the Human Rights Act of 1998. I dare say the Labour Party would find the vast majority of Americans unfit to foster children.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
As I stated in the OP I hold views which may mean that I can't look after some children. Parents normally retain rights to govern the lives of their children even when children have been removed from their parents and more so when parents ask for help. On a couple of occasions over the last 20 or so years children have not been placed or removed from us (they were placed with us as an emergency placement but we were considered for long term care) because their parents didn't want them in a religious home or refused to allow them to attend church. They were too young to stay at home themselves, I have to be in church, when you only work one day a week people expect you to turn up, and it would be unfair to ask my wife not to attend, so the children were moved.
If there is a failing by Rotherham it was in not asking questions and fully involving the carers. Even this last week we were questioned in a meeting confirming that one of the children staying with us will stay with us at least until he leaves care (DV) about our church attendance and expectations for his attendance. I remember once being asked and this was long before I was in ministry, whether we were foster carers to find "pew fodder" I said I thought there may be easier ways to fill a church. I have also learnt that unguarded comments, when you think you are having a cup of tea and chat with your social worker and in general conversation express an opinion on a news story, these things can lead to questions being asked later.
It seems to me that foster carers need to be able to be questioned about all kinds of views they hold, political, religious and ethical, not to bar everyone but to place children in homes where they can thrive. I am not convinced that children from a eastern european EU nation can thrive in a home where the family support a party whose leader has said that he feels allowing people from the new EU countries to enter the UK was a mistake, putting pressure on our social fabric. There are at very least questions to ask.
Part of the role is accepting that there may be a better placement for a child for whom you feel an attachment.
[ 24. November 2012, 21:23: Message edited by: Chief of sinners ]
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
Just a clarification to Beeswax, the children were removed by professional social workers, Labour, Tory and Lib Dem councillors had no say in this nor in setting the policy, this rightly or wrongly was a professional call.
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And a pox on the politicians too, with a by-election coming up on Thursday in, of all places, Rotherham.
So is this a case of using some children and their foster parents for some cynical political point-scoring? If so, it's been a spectacular own-goal - allowing UKIP to get their horrid little leader Mr Garage on prime-time news slots claiming that they are a "mainstream" political party.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
We are moving children from place to place based on how social workers feel about the views of a politician who belongs to the same party as the foster parents?
I can't imagine how such discretion could ever be abused. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Members of the KKK wouldn't volunteer to foster black children because it would constitute mixing the races. Foster parents who did would be branded race traitors by the Klan. Should Latinos who voted Republican not be allowed to foster Latino children because of the Republican Party's stated position on immigration? Would good white, progressives be a better choice? Good luck getting either the Democrats or the Republicans to support something like the Human Rights Act of 1998. I dare say the Labour Party would find the vast majority of Americans unfit to foster children.
That is ridiculous. I am just trying to point out there is a relationship between ones views and fit between foster parent and child. I would struggle to foster a child whose dearest desire was to become a soldier - but I might be a good choice fora teenager trying to come to terms with their sexuality.
Even in the limited view we have through the media coverage - it is clear this is about the fit between this couple and these specific children.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
Just to be clear Hairy biker I say again the children were removed by professional social workers not by politicans. If any one is using this it is UKIP, the foster carers went public when there are a number of professional avenues they could have taken to review the call but, I guess, with the encouragement of UKIP they went to the Telegraph and you are right it has worked well for UKIP.
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
Doublethink, you have summed up perfectly what I have struggled to say. TY
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
The Local Auhority and social workers are bound by confidentiality and will not be allowed to make details public. SO I will wait and see if there is more information about this, before forming a judgement.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What's wrong with the UK passing laws against discrimination and those laws being interpreted by UK courts based on UK jurisprudence?
Nothing
quote:
Why bring Europe or a European court into it at all?
Treaty obligations? The decision of a duly elected government?
quote:
You'll probably say something about about possible bias in UK courts and discrimination against minorities.
I don't believe that
quote:
But, why should Euro-skeptics believe the decisions of a European court are less biased than those of English courts?
You don't have to
quote:
The people in the OP can't foster children because they have less faith in Europe than Labour Party members? Those awful people.
Not at all. The people in the OP were prevented from further fostering of specific children by a professional decision, based on their guidelines, which should be in accordance with the current legal framework governing their work.
If the guidelines has been misapplied, a case review will say so. If the case review says the guidelines has been correctly applied, then there is the possibility of a judicial review of the guidelines.
Any legal ruling csn be appealed all the way up to the European Court under present legislation, if the grounds for appeal are sufficiently good. The European Convention on Human Rights (and the 1998 Act) provides safeguards for those rights of appeal as the law stands.
All that is "bears do shit in the woods" stuff.
At this stage, all we've got is a professional decision and a whole lot of public hooha about its possible unfairness.
If the press reports are accurate, it probably is unfair. But that's a big "if". There's a process in place to sort out the fact from the fluff and it's under way.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would struggle to foster a child whose dearest desire was to become a soldier - but I might be a good choice fora teenager trying to come to terms with their sexuality.
hmm - I would imagine that, ideally*, just like with natural parents - you support and reinforce whatever choice your children make - unless their choice is a destructive/criminal one, in which case, the underlying love should not preclude expressions of disapproval/provision of structures to reform. Struggling to think of something I would disapprove of a child's becoming, actually- then I hit on an *X-Factor* contestant - even then (while I generally despise the cult of so-called celebrity), hey - if they have the talent, why not - if they don't there's a salutory lesson - doesn't mean I wouldn't support their aim.
*yes, I know many *natural* parents have issues with their children's choices/lifestyles but. imo, their job is to nurture them into adult independence and, hopefully, ground them in self-esteem and provide support for them as they feel their way into that state.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Ideally, yes, but we are not perfect - and sometimes it is more useful to recognise that someone else is going to make a better job of it than you are. Especially when you are working with someone who is vulnerable, and has already gone through trauma.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Barnabas62:
Treaty obligations? The decision of a duly elected government?
The UKIP wants to overturn the law involving a European court in English law. You don't have a problem with UK courts nor any reason to suspect the European court is less biased. So, merely being in favor of overturning the Human Rights Act of 1998 says absolutely nothing about whether a person is in favor of protection for certain rights or not. Rather, it is only indicative of how one feels about a European court deciding what counts as a violation of human rights instead of a British court.
quote:
originally posted by Doublethink:
That is ridiculous. I am just trying to point out there is a relationship between ones views and fit between foster parent and child. I would struggle to foster a child whose dearest desire was to become a soldier - but I might be a good choice fora teenager trying to come to terms with their sexuality.
Indeed it is. But, you brought the KKK into the discussion. Barnabas62 brought up the Human Rights Act of 1998 as a reason UKIP members might not be allowed to foster children. I'm just trying compare apples to apples.
quote:
originally posted by Doublethink:
Ideally, yes, but we are not perfect - and sometimes it is more useful to recognise that someone else is going to make a better job of it than you are. Especially when you are working with someone who is vulnerable, and has already gone through trauma.
So, let's compound that trauma by moving the children to yet another foster home because of the platform of the political party to which their current foster parents belong. Forget stability. Forget how the current foster parents are actually treating the children. No, let's look at the platform of the parent's political party.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And a pox on the politicians too, with a by-election coming up on Thursday in, of all places, Rotherham.
So is this a case of using some children and their foster parents for some cynical political point-scoring? If so, it's been a spectacular own-goal - allowing UKIP to get their horrid little leader Mr Garage on prime-time news slots claiming that they are a "mainstream" political party.
No politician can resist the opportunity to open his mouth even if all he can do is put his foot in it! I'm sure this affair has helped UKIP - they stand for a lot of what is nastiest about Britain, and the nasty vote usually turns out at by-elections. This could give them an outside chance on Thursday. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Barnabas62:
Treaty obligations? The decision of a duly elected government?
The UKIP wants to overturn the law involving a European court in English law. You don't have a problem with UK courts nor any reason to suspect the European court is less biased. So, merely being in favor of overturning the Human Rights Act of 1998 says absolutely nothing about whether a person is in favor of protection for certain rights or not. Rather, it is only indicative of how one feels about a European court deciding what counts as a violation of human rights instead of a British court.
Up early - long journey today - but I've time for a quick reply.
Personally I remain to be convinced that moves to provide more of a written constitution in the UK to codify human rights will work better in practice in the long term than the traditional "unwritten constitution/freedoms" shape of the prior law in the UK. But I'm happy for the democratic decision to give some reforms in this area a go, I wish them well and I don't have a problem with any part of the European Convention enshrined in the 1998 Act.
Social workers, on the other hand, given the law as it stands, are looking at a different situation to armchair theorists. Anyone who seeks the repeal of legislation on human rights in the UK throws a different kind of spotlight on themselves when the legal responsibilities in the UK of social workers and foster parents are being considered under the law as it stands.
All I am asserting is that a social worker would have a duty to test that. Not to assume that a UKIP party member would not be willing and able to comply. Just to ask some relevant questions to assure them that the duty of care was in good hands for the sake of the children.
My opinion and yours on the relative necessity of this legislation and others (the Children's Act) - and on what might therefore constitute suitable questioning - is armchair theory. What will be decided by the case review is whether the social workers have acted fairly in this case, again under the law as it stands. Not as a UKIP supporter wants it, or as a social worker understands it, or as armchair theorists might consider its necessity in practice.
That's called upholding the law. It remains to be seen whether social workers in Rotherham have upheld the human rights of the UKIP foster parents while carrying out a duty of care towards children. Rights which might not have been spelled out so clearly if the 1998 Act (which they wish to repeal) did not exist.
Happy for my theoretical assertions, your sceptical assessments, to be informed by what follows. The review (reviews, court cases) wont impact on us directly in the same way they might on public servants with difficult public responsibilities and foster parents with a willingness to take on the important role of providing temporary care for children.
More than anything else, I want that to be a just process for all parties. I believe the current law provides a framework for that just process and also for a just decision. Anyway, it's the only law in town.
[ 25. November 2012, 05:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QB] The UKIP wants to overturn the law involving a European court in English law. You don't have a problem with UK courts nor any reason to suspect the European court is less biased. So, merely being in favor of overturning the Human Rights Act of 1998 says absolutely nothing about whether a person is in favor of protection for certain rights or not. Rather, it is only indicative of how one feels about a European court deciding what counts as a violation of human rights instead of a British court.
Surely if that were the case they would keep the provisions of the Human Rights Act and "only" withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights? The Human Rights Act actually means human rights decisions ARE made on British courts for the most part. Besides, euro-scepticism usually refers to the EU, being against not only the EU but every institution with the word "Europe" in it smacks of galloping xenophobia rather than rational policy.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
... I say again the children were removed by professional social workers not by politicans. ...
True, but not entirely fair and it doesn't entirely let politicians off the hook.
Professionals pick up the flavour of the political administration. They try to guess what the politicians want and to fit that to what bounces onto their plates. Sometimes they may guess wrong. If they guess right, but something goes wrong, the politicians will still always blame the professionals. The professionals are expected to take it, to cover up for the politicians and have no forum in which to answer back.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I have avoided commenting on this because I suspect there is a whole lot more to the story than has been reported - as others have said.
Firstly, political views should not be a bar to fostering, unless these views are very extreme, dangerous, or involving indoctrination. This does not apply to UKIP, or any other mainstream part - the BNP I might be more concerned with.
Secondly, fostering does involve moving children around periodically. That is the nature of it, which is disruptive and challenging to all concerned, but is in the nature of fostering.
Finally, there is a challenge of getting the right foster parents for particular children. Sometimes, it means a temporary assignment that is not perfect. Ethnicity is an important part of this - it is better if there is some ethnic connection. But it is not always possible, as fostering is sometimes done with hours notice.
I suspect, in the end, this is a non-story. But social workers always seem to get the bad end of the press. They do not deserve it.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Is it coincidence that this item has hit the headlines just as Rotherham has a by-election?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I have avoided commenting on this because I suspect there is a whole lot more to the story than has been reported - as others have said.
I sincerely hope so.
quote:
Firstly, political views should not be a bar to fostering, unless these views are very extreme, dangerous, or involving indoctrination. This does not apply to UKIP, or any other mainstream part - the BNP I might be more concerned with.
I agree. I wonder which parties of the extreme left might also fall into this category.
quote:
Secondly, fostering does involve moving children around periodically. That is the nature of it, which is disruptive and challenging to all concerned, but is in the nature of fostering.
Whilst this is true, it goes nowhere near what is reported to have happened here. When the foster-parents' account of why the children were moved was put to Joyce Thacker on Radio 4 yesterday morning inviting her to deny its veracity - that is that the reason the children were moved was because of the matter of their UKIP membership - she not only refused to deny it, she offered a justification for so doing by reference to the "strong views" held by some in UKIP, the party's opposition to unrestricted immigration and its "mantra" (an interestingly loaded word for a supposedly non-politically motivated public servant to have used) against the "promotion of multiculturalism". She could easily have taken refuge in precisely the kind of explanation you offer. That she didn't is both a credit to her for being so honest and indicative that it was precisely the objection to UKIP membership that was the reason for the action.
quote:
Finally, there is a challenge of getting the right foster parents for particular children. Sometimes, it means a temporary assignment that is not perfect. Ethnicity is an important part of this - it is better if there is some ethnic connection. But it is not always possible, as fostering is sometimes done with hours notice.
This was not done at "hours notice" but seven weeks after the children had been placed with the foster-parents. If a fostering place better matching the ethnic and cultural needs (the expression repeatedly used by Joyce Thacker in the Radio 4 interview) of the children had been found, then surely that would be the reason that could have been given to the parents and the press.
quote:
I suspect, in the end, this is a non-story. But social workers always seem to get the bad end of the press. They do not deserve it.
I suspect it is very much not a non-story. I suspect it might be exactly what it appears to be, i.e. somewhere between a cock-up and a reprehensible ideologically motivated act.
Why is it that certain groups of public servants (social workers and teachers spring to mind) expect to avoid public criticism when they cock-up or behave in reprehensible ways? It isn't a privilege claimed by police officers, soldiers, immigration staff, prison officers or politicians, all of whose contexts are arguably as difficult or complex.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
