Thread: Purgatory: UKIP membership a bar to fostering Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000912
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I hear you.
I don't believe people who disagree with my political views should be allowed to raise children either.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
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?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
*tested*, yes, Barnabas; having the children simply removed without adequate (or, it appears, any) investigation is another matter entirely.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
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.
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
Probably something to do with Rotherham's Joyce Thacker being part of the "Common Purpose" lefty cabal. An idealogue with an axe to grind.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
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.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
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.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
Doublethink, you have summed up perfectly what I have struggled to say. TY
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
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.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
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)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Is it coincidence that this item has hit the headlines just as Rotherham has a by-election?
Jengie
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Soldiers and police officers, with the exception of when they assault and murder innocent people, tend to get a very easy ride in the media. Teachers and social workers get pilloried by one outlet or another for pretty much anything they do, and all the ills of society get laid at their door. Teachers and social workers would be happy to get the same level of respect offered to the police, it would be a big step up.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
What Trisagion said. There doesn't seem to much if anything more to meet the eye here other than political bigotry on the part of the social services.
[ 25. November 2012, 16:44: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Trisagion - I was only trying to explore the complex and difficult task of fostering, and social workers as a whole, not saying that this particular case was done on short notice. It is more that children are often moved around homes quickly, even if not in this case. Once a child is in the fostering system, their life has been disrupted.
There seems to be, from what I have heard, confusion as to the reason for the move. The waffling around this does suggest that their political position was part at least of this, but surely they would have known of the parents political position before this time? Which is why I suspect that there is more than this to it.
And social workers do not expect to make mistakes and get away with it. However they are particularly susceptible to people who do not know or understand the case making snap judgements on them. They do, as a whole, appreciate the responsibility put on them, but as a whole, they do find that their decisions are often challenged publically. I know that in my business, this level of scrutiny would drive me away - it is insane.
People make mistakes. People who deal with other people make mistakes, and sometimes they cause problems, people suffer, people die. Sometimes we need to accept this. Sometimes we need to look at how often people get it right, not how often they get it wrong. Believing the best of people seems to me like the Christian approach - not naivety, but acceptance.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
And tends to further my support my contention that this was a politically motivated and ideologically based act rather than anything else.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
Do you genuinely mean 'anonymous', or do you mean a contact who said they didn't want his or her name made public? There's a huge difference.
As a general principle, one should ignore a truly anonymous denunciation and make it publically clear on every possible occasion that that will be your normal practice.
One should also never act on any denunciation or tip off without checking and verifying it, and that one cannot do with an anonymous one.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
quote:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
I have never been asked about my party politics in any interview with social workers but then I am a right on leftie so it would possibly have been and advantage if I had been according to some. I have been asked about my views on multi culturalism, on my views on other faiths (many many times), on my views on education and other issues on which political parties have policies. However I guess because I am a low level activist leaflets can be seen in my house near election time and things come up in conversation, so no doubt social workers know where I stand.
David Cameron has interesting views on UKIP members, “a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists” not ideal foster carers then!
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
quote:
As a general principle, one should ignore a truly anonymous denunciation and make it publically clear on every possible occasion that that will be your normal practice.
One should also never act on any denunciation or tip off without checking and verifying it, and that one cannot do with an anonymous one.
Imagine if a social worker took this line and didn't act on an anonymous tip off and a child was hurt. Then the person came forward and explained that for some good reason in their mind they didn't give their name at the time, perhaps a fear of their own children being attacked but did warn the social worker of the danger to the child. How would the headlines read the next day? I tell you what, they would not look good for the social worker.
While in the case of membership of a political party it may be OK to ignore a tip off I don't think that can be a policy.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
So you act without verification then?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So you act without verification then?
It's generally possible to investigate an anonymous allegation without assuming the allegation is true. With regard to UKIP membership there's the simple expedient of, y'know, asking.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
And tends to further my support my contention that this was a politically motivated and ideologically based act rather than anything else.
Newest question to be asked of potential foster parents.
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the UKIP?"
Foster parents answering that they are members of the UKIP will not be allowed to foster children. Those who say they were members of the UKIP but aren't any longer may be allowed to foster children provided they name names of other potential foster parents who are members of the UKIP. Foster parents answering that they have never been members of the UKIP will be allowed to foster children provided they haven't already been named as party members. If they have, they'll only be allowed to foster children after admitting to involvement with the UKIP and naming names of other potential foster parents who are members of the UKIP.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Caught up on the radio and TV interviews with Joyce Thacker. It looks bad for Rotherham Children's Services. It looks as though the policy on cultural and ethnic needs was, and still is, incoherent.
Here she is.
"There was no issue over the quality of the care provided" (by the UKIP-supporting foster parents).
As best I can understand it, they were fine for emergency care but not for a longer term placement? But the couple apparently had a seven year track record, were entrusted with the children after court criticism, on cultural and ethnic support grounds, of previous care. So they were trusted on their track record for an emergency placement where sensitivity was required, but then found wanting because "somebody" revealed their political allegiance?
I can't see how that makes any sense at all. That's pure guilt by association, in a situation where they apparently had good reasons to trust the couple concerned. That looks like a failure of nerve following criticism.
I did look on the Rotherham website but I could find no clear statement about the need to provide proper cultural and ethnic care - and the implications of that for foster parent selection, or training.
Maybe you can do better?
On the face of it, Rotherham need to do a lot better.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Hmm, court criticised them - then legal advice supported the criticism. Seems then social services got very twitchy. Wonder what the court were originally referencing ?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I found this on the Norwich website in the FAQ section for prospective foster-carers
Interesting answer.
Click on the 9th FAQ "Do I have a choice on the type of child I care for?"
And you find this answer.
quote:
Before you are approved by the fostering panel, we will have agreed on the type of child who will fit in with your family. This includes the age, gender, ethnicity and religion of potential foster children.
The Norwich view appears to be that in order to comply with best-fit policy and practice on culture and ethnicity issues, the authority and the carers agree together in advance. Political allegiance is a side issue, since foster-carer personal preferences (however arrived at) and local authority views are resolved together. That would seem to provide protection from specific court criticism over matters of policy.
No doubt it's an ideal view, given the perennial shortages of foster-carers just about everywhere. It's a "restricted choices" world. Practice will be relatively pragmatic. For example, I'm sure that in emergency care situations it's "any port in a storm". But by agreement. And at least the foster-carers know the score. Culture and ethnicity are issues "we" need to resolve together in advance.
[This isn't just theory. I know two foster carers in Norwich, who are both evangelical Christians, who were entrusted with care of a child from an Islamic background and, for example, took the child regularly to the local mosque in accordance with the agreed cultural and ethnic needs of the child. Thinking in terms of types does not necessarily lead to stereotyped solutions.]
In advance of the inquiry, we can't be 100% sure that such a policy did not exist in Rotherham. But it seems very unlikely that it did. If it had, or was planned as a reform, Joyce Thacker's interviews would surely have sounded very different.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
That is interesting Barnabus but for clarity the link is to NFA which is an idependant fostering agency not Norwich CC but the point is still true, that a discussion will take place between carers, social workers and again at the panel meeting (see below)about which ages, how many and from which ethnic backgrounds carers are most suited to care for. However, I think if a carer said that there were no circumstances under which they would care for a child from a particular ethnic or religious background alarm bells would ring.
The panel is a group of people you make the recommendation for approval or not of foster carers and long term placements, they include social workers, health care professionals, existing foster carers, educationalists, in a local authority setting the councillor who has the ultimate responsibility for children in care and others with something to contribute to the assessment process
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yes, thanks for the clarification and correction. The link was arrived at by googling foster care in Norwich and found after a a bit of navigation through links. Missed the switch!
I'm sure that current Norwich policy and practice conforms to those NFA guidelines. (Which is borne out by the experience of the couple I know.)
As you say, the point still stands. It looks like good policy thinking, capable of practical implementation anywhere.
[ 26. November 2012, 08:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
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.
Wanting to repeal an Act is not the same as being opposed to the provisions menationed in certain cherry-picked articles from that act. Freedom of conscience and prohibition of discrimination are supported by UKIP. As they explain here human rights are already fully supported and legally provided for in existing domestic laws outside of the act. What they don't support is the UK being subject to a foreign court, as well as the too-broad language that allows the ECHR to prohibit UK exercise of its own laws in effectively punishing and deporting criminals. Is that so hard to understand?
It is worrying that people are so ready to discriminate against other people based on their political views - when they have no idea what those views actually are! Their sole knowledge being derived from prejudice rather than truth.
The council member has denigrated UKIP and claimed its members are unfit to be parents. This in my view, is outright libel, and discrimination, and UKIP, and the foster carers, who have also been tarnished with this unsubstantiated accusation, should sue her. Ironically they would likely win under the Human Rights Act Article 14, prohibiting discrimination based on political views. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 26. November 2012, 09:37: Message edited by: Hawk ]
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
From Hawk
quote:
The council member has denigrated UKIP and claimed its members are unfit to be parents.
This may be nit picking but the spokesperson from Rotherham was the director of children's services an officer and professional social worker not a politican and a council member. Although we could guess her politics we don't know them, she claims to have made the decision according to her professional ethics. She never said or even implied that UKIP members are unfit to be parents only that this couple were not a good match for children for whom the council has responsibility.
[ 26. November 2012, 10:06: Message edited by: Chief of sinners ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
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.
Who is this 'someone else' though? Another carer may have the 'right' political views, but be not quite perfect in other ways. Do the children then get moved again to a completely different household when slightly better carers are found. And then again when slightly better carers are found again?
Just because people aren't perfect shouldn't mean you keep moving children around until you find parents that are (according to whatever definition of 'perfect' the social worker of the day holds). I would say stability with less-than-perfect, though still competent, loving, and trying-their-best parents is better than endless disruption, looking for an ideal that, in most cases, doesn't exist.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Hawk
I quote from Joyce Thacker from the video link in a prior post. This one.
"These parents, I should stress, were providing good quality care. There was no issue over the quality of the care-providing".
It looks like there is much to criticise, much to reform, in Rotherham. But Joyce Thacker did not libel the foster-parents.
Did you spot that these children were from a European migrant background? Given UKIP's policy on immigration (which includes repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act) it would hardly have been wrong to ask a few questions about whether they agreed with that immigration policy and how that agreement might have any impact on their care of children from a migrant background.
My criticism of them is that they don't appear to have done that. Instead, they appear to have assumed unsuitability by reason of political affiliation, rather than just testing that suitability while recognising the previous good track record of the foster parents.
There is no reason to assume the foster-parents' care would be affected in practice, but it would hardly have been wrong to ask a couple of questions, would it? That's all I've been saying since the start, while being critical throughout of the way this has been handled.
[And on reflection, Hawk, you and I and others had better remember Commandment 7 in our exchanges re behaviour asserted to be libellous. - B62 Purg Host)
[ 26. November 2012, 11:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
Barnabas
quote:
My criticism of them is that they don't appear to have done that. Instead, they appear to have assumed unsuitability by reason of political affiliation, rather than just testing that suitability while recognising the previous good track record of the foster parents.
There is no reason to assume the foster-parents' care would be affected in practice, but it would hardly have been wrong to ask a couple of questions, would it? That's all I've been saying since the start, while being critical throughout of the way this has been handled.
Me in OP
quote:
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.
I think I am now on the same page as Barnabas, I some sympathy with the social workers but agree questions need to be asked about the handling of this case, and an open and frank discussion on the wider issues.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The council member has denigrated UKIP and claimed its members are unfit to be parents. This in my view, is outright libel, and discrimination, and UKIP, and the foster carers, who have also been tarnished with this unsubstantiated accusation, should sue her.
It is generally understood that political parties. like local authorities, cannot sue for defamation. You can insult them as much as you like, as long as you don't, in the process, defame any flesh and blood person.
Commercial companies can, because they have commercial reputations to protect, which can be quantified.
I'd leave to those who know more about these things what rights a political party has under the European Convention. Only the bit on peaceful enjoyment of possessions seems to include non-natural persons.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Given UKIP's policy on immigration (which includes repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act) it would hardly have been wrong to ask a few questions about whether they agreed with that immigration policy and how that agreement might have any impact on their care of children from a migrant background.
I disagree. UKIPs policy on immigration is that it needs to be restrained and controlled more strictly than current policy. Not that it should be stopped, or that past immigrants are bad people, or that immigrants or their children should be deported, or discriminated against in any way. Given this, how do their political views in any way speak against their ability to properly care for children of immigrant parents?
It is 100% valid in a democratic nation for them to disagree with current government policy, without any aspersions being made against them. If someone holds the view that current immigration controls are poor policy, that has nothing at all to do with their fitness to raise and care for children of immigrant parents.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I have to agree with Barnabas62 and Hawk!
It is quite right to ask fosterers questions about how they would treat children of Eastren European origin, and that's a good question for any potential fosterers, not just those who are members of UKIP. On the other hand it would be wrong to assume that the parents agreed with everything UKIP state in their manifesto. I doubt any member of any political party agrees with everything in their party's manifesto (except for totalitarian ones, like the Dear Old Stalinist CPGB).
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
UKIPs policy on immigration is that it needs to be restrained and controlled more strictly than current policy. Not that it should be stopped, or that past immigrants are bad people, or that immigrants or their children should be deported, or discriminated against in any way. Given this, how do their political views in any way speak against their ability to properly care for children of immigrant parents?
It's because lefties think everyone who is in any way opposed to uncontrolled or excessive immigration is a racist.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: It's because lefties think everyone who is in any way opposed to uncontrolled or excessive immigration is a racist.
Well, I only think this when I'm not too busy being instinctively anti-semitic. Or morally vain. Man, you sure have a lot of things to do when you're from the Left. They should have told me about this before I signed up.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Given UKIP's policy on immigration (which includes repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act) it would hardly have been wrong to ask a few questions about whether they agreed with that immigration policy and how that agreement might have any impact on their care of children from a migrant background.
I disagree. UKIPs policy on immigration is that it needs to be restrained and controlled more strictly than current policy. Not that it should be stopped, or that past immigrants are bad people, or that immigrants or their children should be deported, or discriminated against in any way. [...]
If someone holds the view that current immigration controls are poor policy, that has nothing at all to do with their fitness to raise and care for children of immigrant parents.
This, to the max.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Social workers get criticised for not acting on tip offs. That's seen as a sign of neglect. "You should have at least checked!".
Social workers should also get criticised for acting on tip-offs. "You've no right to check-up on people like that!"
They can't win, can they?
Come on, Shipmates! I'm talking about questions, not casting aspersions, not the third degree. Questions in pursuit of this sort of duty of care are not snooping; they are looking after the interests of the children. Unnecessarily intrusive? Depends how its done, surely?
I've already said it looks extremely likely that the team over-reacted to a possible tip-off, assumed far too much.
I think in your indignation some of you are flipping that coin.
[ 26. November 2012, 14:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Why not make decisions based on how the children are being treated instead of the foster parent's political views? We often hear complaints about the lack of resources available to child protection workers. OK...then how do they have the time to worry about children who've received excellent care for the past two months? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You'll then have more time to fix the stuff that's broken.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought that social workers were obliged by law to investigate many aspects of foster parents' lives and opinions? Presumably, if they didn't, and something disastrous happened, they would get pilloried for being lazy!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Beeswax Altar
I completely agree with you in principle.
Resource shortage is a huge issue; therefore so is time management.
How do they know that any placement is going OK? In this case, how was Joyce Thacker able to say the positive things she did say about the quality of care?
The answer is because there's a working relationship of some variable quality between foster-carers and social work teams. So there's some communication anyway. No doubt varying from "we're here if you need us" to the "just calling to see how the placement is going" with no doubt occasional visits thrown in. They are working together for the good of the children so they are bound to communicate to some extent.
So far as we can tell, this emergency placement was sensitive because of prior legal complaints. Something to do with the culture and ethnicity issues (European migrant community in the UK) and the way they had been handled previously. So you'd think they would want to keep more of an eye on it.
What we don't know in this case was the specific quality of the prior relationship between the foster-carers and the social-workers; how often they talked, how they got on.
Maybe that will come out in the wash?
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
UKIPs policy on immigration is that it needs to be restrained and controlled more strictly than current policy. Not that it should be stopped, or that past immigrants are bad people, or that immigrants or their children should be deported, or discriminated against in any way. Given this, how do their political views in any way speak against their ability to properly care for children of immigrant parents?
It's because lefties think everyone who is in any way opposed to uncontrolled or excessive immigration is a racist.
But the issue here isn't immigration, surely, but multiculturalism.
If a potential foster family have views which, for example, might lead them to discourage children from speaking their own language, or participating in the life of their own community, then that would surely be a big problem.
I have no idea if that is the case with this family, but it's not a non-issue.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that social workers were obliged by law to investigate many aspects of foster parents' lives and opinions? Presumably, if they didn't, and something disastrous happened, they would get pilloried for being lazy!
Quite so, and arguably this is what has happened here. Rotherham appear not to have investigated. They assumed that membership of a certain political party necessarily meant the holding of attitudes inconsistent with providing suitable care for the children.
Barnabas62: you will admit that looks like a very basic error, and one which appears not only to lack common sense. I suspect the annoyance is because of a perception that social services tie themselves up with red tape, policy guidance, and perceptions as to what the law is, and somewhere in the chaos, common sense quietly expires.
There's also this from the Torygraph:
quote:
Since the foster row story broke, claims have emerged of discrimination against other Ukip supporters. They include a former district nurse who says she was barred from volunteering as a mentor for young adults by Barnardo’s, the children’s charity, after standing as a candidate for Ukip, and another woman who alleges that she was forced out of her public sector job because she was a party activist.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
But the issue here isn't immigration, surely, but multiculturalism.
If a potential foster family have views which, for example, might lead them to discourage children from speaking their own language, or participating in the life of their own community, then that would surely be a big problem.
I have no idea if that is the case with this family, but it's not a non-issue.
The parents assert that they were learning the children's language. If this is true, they were not anti-multiculturalist on the above description.
In any event, I understand UKIP's position to be against state promotion of multiculturalism. I fail to see why this must also mean being opposed to speaking French at home or celebrating Diwali at a private function.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Social workers get criticised for not acting on tip offs. That's seen as a sign of neglect. "You should have at least checked!".
Social workers should also get criticised for acting on tip-offs. "You've no right to check-up on people like that!"
They can't win, can they?
Come on, Shipmates! I'm talking about questions, not casting aspersions, not the third degree. Questions in pursuit of this sort of duty of care are not snooping; they are looking after the interests of the children.
What you don't understand about my (and others') criticism is that asking questions - or even treating information about someone's politicial views as a 'tip-off' needing to be investigated - is discriminatory. Discrimination is discrimination, however soft the application is.
For instance if someone tipped off social workers that the foster parents were actually jews, do you think this should result in 'questions being asked'? Not to say that all Jewish people are bad at parenting multicultural children, but after being tipped off about the parents' alleged Jewishness questions should at least be asked - in the interests of the children.
Or is that just an example of prejudice and discrimination? Should the correct response to such a tip-off be 'whether the parents are jews or not has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of care the parents provide so there's no point in investigating'.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Barnabas62: you will admit that looks like a very basic error, and one which appears not only to lack common sense.
Well, I've already said it doesn't look very good for Rotherham. But I'm more inclined to go with either "failure of nerve" (my phrase) or "seems that social services got very twitchy" (Doublethink's assessment) - in both cases after prior legal criticism.
It's easy to get confused under fire; so far as social services are concerned "under fire" is their normal operating status, given media scrutiny and public expectations. As this thread indicates, often enough they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Latest from Rotherham
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Social workers get criticised for not acting on tip offs. That's seen as a sign of neglect. "You should have at least checked!".
Social workers should also get criticised for acting on tip-offs. "You've no right to check-up on people like that!"
They can't win, can they?
Come on, Shipmates! I'm talking about questions, not casting aspersions, not the third degree. Questions in pursuit of this sort of duty of care are not snooping; they are looking after the interests of the children.
What you don't understand about my (and others') criticism is that asking questions - or even treating information about someone's politicial views as a 'tip-off' needing to be investigated - is discriminatory. Discrimination is discrimination, however soft the application is.
For instance if someone tipped off social workers that the foster parents were actually jews, do you think this should result in 'questions being asked'? Not to say that all Jewish people are bad at parenting multicultural children, but after being tipped off about the parents' alleged Jewishness questions should at least be asked - in the interests of the children.
Or is that just an example of prejudice and discrimination? Should the correct response to such a tip-off be 'whether the parents are jews or not has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of care the parents provide so there's no point in investigating'.
If they were Orthodox Jews I can see it being quite legitimate to ask questions about their ability to deal with the cultural needs of gentile children. Being ethnically Jewish doesn't give an indication about a person's beliefs, whereas membership of UKIP does. When even the tory party leader says that most UKIP supporters are closet racists it's hardly galloping liberalism to consider the possibility that he might be right.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The analogy with being Jewish is absurd.
I'm curious how people know that the social workers did not investigate the parents, or simply said, they are UKIP members, therefore cannot foster non-British children.
If they did investigate, or did discover other stuff about the parents, presumably they would not reveal it, quite rightly, except to a case conference.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
When even the tory party leader says that most UKIP supporters are closet racists it's hardly galloping liberalism to consider the possibility that he might be right.
And he should know since according to a top tory MP some tories are closet racists as well. Shock horror! Investigate all tory foster parents immediately!
Or perhaps we can admit that closet racism is unconnected with party affiliation, and if an individual shows no sign of racism in the usual investigation of fitness to foster children (which are by necessity pretty stringent anyway) then membership or otherwise of any party shouldn't cause them to be discriminated against.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Why would you expect the Tory leader to have good things to say about the UKIP? Cameron wants to stay in power. The Tories need every vote they can get. The UKIP takes votes from the Tories.
Why wouldn't David Cameron try to convince voters the UKIP was racist?
Should we also take whatever David Cameron says about the Labour Party as the gospel truth?
Didn't David Cameron say multiculturalism is dead?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Social workers get criticised for not acting on tip offs. That's seen as a sign of neglect. "You should have at least checked!".
Social workers should also get criticised for acting on tip-offs. "You've no right to check-up on people like that!"
They can't win, can they?
Come on, Shipmates! I'm talking about questions, not casting aspersions, not the third degree. Questions in pursuit of this sort of duty of care are not snooping; they are looking after the interests of the children.
What you don't understand about my (and others') criticism is that asking questions - or even treating information about someone's politicial views as a 'tip-off' needing to be investigated - is discriminatory. Discrimination is discrimination, however soft the application is.
I do understand that.
It's an obviously prejudiced act to determine this matter solely on the basis of information received. That is true whether or not the information about political membership is true.
And some of the published statements seem to be saying precisely that.
But I think it is normal for social services to receive all kinds of third party information which a member of the public thinks to be relevant to their duty of care. They do not have the luxury of ignoring them. They have to make a judgement about every single one. To discriminate if you like between those they note but mark NFA - and those which may be worthy of a check.
Without knowing all the circumstances of this case, all I'm saying is that, given the migrant background of the children and previous court criticism, some measure of checking was prudent. Given the responsibilities they carry, social services teams do not have the liberty of ignoring information.
Would it have been a discriminatory use of that information to ask questions? Yes it would have. But only in the sense of deciding that the information to hand could not be ignored.
Lets play a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say I am the supervising social worker in a very similar case. I have good opinions of these carers. I'm happy they have what it takes to do the difficult emergency fostering job. Then this "information received" lands on my desk. I'm surprised. I know it's a sensitive case involving migrant children. What do I do with the information?
I think I'd pay them a visit, check things out again. Hopefully, I'd find my prior judgement confirmed, no grounds for concern. In that case, I'd write a report for the record, saying I had double-checked their ongoing suitability in view of the rumour and found no grounds for concern. It would be good to have that on the record promptly. It would protect the carers, the children, me.
On the other hand, if, against my prior judgement, I found there were grounds for concern about continuing suitability, then I'd report that as well. But my judgment would at that stage not be based on political membership. It would be based on professional judgment about the continuing suitability of the carers to do the job in hand. And I'd have to state what those reasons were.
But I don't think I'd feel I had the luxury of NFAing the information received on principle. Not in a case where the children were from a migrant background, maybe with outstanding immigration issues involved.
Would that line of action make me prejudiced in your book? Remember I work in a potential goldfish bowl where if things go wrong (any way) my paperwork gets crawled all over by 20/20 hindsight independent investigators.
Here's an alternative press story in completely different circumstances
"They knew they were UKIP members? They knew UKIP's attitude to European migrants? And yet they did nothing about that? They left children of European migrants in their hands? What's more, for reasons of political correctness, they didn't even bother to check it out! What sort of bloody incompetence is that"
The remarks immediately above reek of the worst kind of prejudice, don't they?
Welcome to the goldfish bowl.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
If you got an anonymous tip that the parents of a foster child were seen at a pub having a pint would you investigate to make sure the parents weren't alcoholics even if not evidence of drunkenness was reported?
In your alternate headlines, what happened to the immigrant children left with the UKIP parents? Nothing? If so, it says more about the people raising the complaint then it does anything else.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think it is normal for social services to receive all kinds of third party information which a member of the public thinks to be relevant to their duty of care. They do not have the luxury of ignoring them. They have to make a judgement about every single one. To discriminate if you like between those they note but mark NFA - and those which may be worthy of a check.
Your entire post and position is based on the assumption that membership of UKIP in itself is 'suspicious activity'. Apparently in your opinion the UKIP have 'views on migrants' which are in opposition to the effective care of migrant children. Please could you explain what these 'views' are, and why you consider membership of UKIP to be meaningful information that a social worker should investigate further on. Please link to official documents or statements by UKIP that constitute grounds for this suspicion of UKIP members.
Your posts so far have mentioned only their opposition to the Human Rights Act, which, as I've explained, is not based on a disregard for human rights, or a support for discrimination against migrants, as you appear to have prejudicially assumed.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you got an anonymous tip that the parents of a foster child were seen at a pub having a pint would you investigate to make sure the parents weren't alcoholics even if not evidence of drunkenness was reported?
In your alternate headlines, what happened to the immigrant children left with the UKIP parents? Nothing? If so, it says more about the people raising the complaint then it does anything else.
Why do you always argue reductio ad absurdum ?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
From my perspective, political discussions on Ship of Fools often lend themselves to reductio ad absurdum.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Your entire post and position is based on the assumption that membership of UKIP in itself is 'suspicious activity'.
I don't assume that membership of UKIP is by its nature a suspicious activity. It's a legitimate, properly constituted party with every right to attract support. I do disagree profoundly with their policy on immigration and its related rejection of the European Convention on Human Rights. But they are well within their rights to formulate and promote that policy.
What has that got to do with consideration of what might be a prudent check by a supervisory social worker, given the real working conditions they face? Remember that throughout I've argued that Rotherham would be wrong if they have excluded this couple from this case purely on grounds of political allegiance.
In this Rotherham case (and similar) they had a different specific problem. Might the UKIP policy on immigration attract support from some people unsuitable for foster-carer work with the children of immigrants? I'm saying that they would have done better to check out that concern, rather than make any assumption about unsuitability without checking. My position does not rule out any particular UKIP members as perfectly acceptable carers for any child. But it recognises the possibility that, in common with every other foster-carers, some UKIP members might be more suited to care for some children than others. That's all "best fit" is about.
Anyway, in a case which has already attracted legal criticism on ethnic fit, they could hardly afford not to check out suitability. Even if the odds are in practice low, they could hardly afford the assumption that they were zero. Not in a sensitive case.
If you want to lump all that nuanced reasoning, that particular concern, under the general term "suspicion", feel free. I don't think that is what it is, but I can't stop you thinking that.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In your alternate headlines, what happened to the immigrant children left with the UKIP parents? Nothing? If so, it says more about the people raising the complaint then it does anything else.
It was a hypothetical. I'm trying to paint what blame looks like, how it can arise, that's all.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Your entire post and position is based on the assumption that membership of UKIP in itself is 'suspicious activity'.
I don't assume that membership of UKIP is by its nature a suspicious activity...
Okay but then you immediately follow this by saying:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Might the UKIP policy on immigration attract support from some people unsuitable for foster-carer work with the children of immigrants? I'm saying that they would have done better to check out that concern, rather than make any assumption about unsuitability without checking...
How is that anything other than suspicion? Affiliation with UKIP gives special reason for concern which needs checking out.
I think we appear to have utterly different definitions of ‘suspicion’ here.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If you want to lump all that nuanced reasoning, that particular concern, under the general term "suspicion", feel free. I don't think that is what it is, but I can't stop you thinking that.
Yes I call a spade a spade, however much you hedge. Might UKIP policy attract racists? No more than labour, tory, or no party affiliation whatever. It has absolutely no bearing - unless you are willing to support this with evidence that UKIP is more likely than any other party to attract unsuitable types then this is pure prejudice (and throwaway insults by rival politicians doesn't count as evidence - just more prejudice).
What is this ‘particular concern’ you speak of? You still claim that UKIP membership is a cause for ‘particular concern’. If you don’t want to admit to the word ‘suspicion’, or the word ‘prejudice’, please just answer this question:
If the social worker had an anonymous tip-off that the couple were members of the Conservative Party would the social worker need to check this out to make sure the couple weren’t unsuitable carers, attracted by prominent past tory leaders’ outspoken comments on restricting immigration.
If you answer yes, and also yes if the party in question was 'Labour' or 'no affiliation', then I'll accept that at least you're not advocating discrimination based on political views - if you think any political affiliation or none is worthy of concern regardless of party. Perhaps for you it is the tip-off itself that matters, not the substance of it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Hawk
On the question of relative party affiliations.
I do think the UKIP policy on immigration is more likely to attract to its fold people with extreme views about the human rights of immigrants. I do not think the same can be said about the present Conservative, Liberal or Labour party policies on immigration. That is a reasonable inference to draw, not from the wording of the polices but from some survey work I saw a few months ago.
You can check out the links in this report. I accept that the survey results have been disputed by UKIP. However, the two surveys quoted back one another up. If you have evidence that these surveys have been discredited by any independent observer, I'd be glad to see it.
On the issue of immigration, note this quote
quote:
At the same time, however, Ukip critics tend to ignore the fact that their party does have considerable policy overlaps with the extreme right. Like the BNP, at the last general election Ukip demanded an end to uncontrolled immigration, tighter border controls, the expulsion of illegal immigrants, the removal of benefits for remaining immigrants and an "end the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies".
If I were a social worker considering a placement of migrant children that finding might give me cause for concern.
And this statistic
quote:
Almost two-fifths (37%) (of UKIP affiliates) backed the idea of repatriating immigrants back to their country of origin, and irrespective of whether they had broken the law
If I were a social worker considering a placement of migrant children that finding might also give me cause for concern.
What you are saying is that it is an act of unfairness to check the suitability of a placement in the particular case of this particular couple. That their recently discovered political affiliation provides no grounds at all for such a check. In this case, in these specific circumstances as so far reported, I disagree. It is a safer to check the placement than to hope it remains OK. I still believe it is wrong to pass judgment on the suitability of the couple for this specific foster-caring on the basis of their political affiliation.
I can think of loads of foster-carer placements where any check-up would have been completely unnecessary on the basis of this report i.e their political affiliation would be irrelevant. Not this one.
If you think that is being unduly suspicious, then we're going to have to agree to differ.
Hawk, you are entirely free to check out closely my views and my reasons for them on this website. It's just a discussion after all.
But it just strikes me as ironic that you are so reluctant to give a supervisory social worker a similar freedom to check out the views of two foster-carers whose caring on behalf of the local authority is actually subject to that worker's supervision. Foster-carers are not autonomous in the carrying out of their duties. And what they do in that role is a heck of a lot more important than us shooting the breeze here.
And that's it for tonight!
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm not very familiar with UKIP or with this case, but I think it's only natural that before Social Services place a child, in the interview they're having with the prospective parents, they ask if there are any political/religious obstacles that would make them unfit to receive an immigrant/gay/disabled/... child.
If there are, they shouldn't receive a child at all. It isn't Social Services' job to cater for the parents' political/religious preferences.
Of course, this should be asked to people of all political parties and of all religions. Being a member of UKIP by itself shouldn't disqualify people. But it's a question that should be asked, so I'm with Barnabas on this. The allegation of bigotry is ullshit.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
I don't agree.
UKIP may have suddenly become all respectable in the eyes of many, but they remain a fringe party with probably more anti-foreign bigotry in its ranks than the Tories.
Rotherham's mistake was not finding out whether in fact the foster parents were racists. That is what makes their reaction so wrong and Orwellian.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But do we know what the social workers did find out? If they did find more information about the foster-parents, they would be bound by law not to release this to anyone, except to a case conference, and obviously any other official enquiry.
No doubt the tabloids are desperate to get more info; let's just hope there are no leaks, for the sake of both parents and children.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
We do have Rotherham's own statement that they had no concern with the foster parents' care, which of course makes Rotherham look even worse.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, that doesn't answer my point - if there is other information about the parents, the social workers are duty bound not to release it, and I assume, the Council likewise.
As I said, the tabloids will be desperate to get hold of this info, if it exists, so let's hope the confidentiality sticks.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
Posted by Beeswax
quote:
If you got an anonymous tip that the parents of a foster child were seen at a pub having a pint would you investigate to make sure the parents weren't alcoholics even if not evidence of drunkenness was reported?
Frankly yes, I don't think that those outside the fostering system realise the degree of openness required by foster carers. I am questioned about my drinking at least once a year before my annual review. In the case above I would be expected to say that I was modelling responsible drinking and I would give approximate times I was in the pub, how much I drank and whether or not the children were with me
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that doesn't answer my point - if there is other information about the parents, the social workers are duty bound not to release it, and I assume, the Council likewise.
As I said, the tabloids will be desperate to get hold of this info, if it exists, so let's hope the confidentiality sticks.
What the council might or might not have found out is irrelevant - unless they were lying when they said they had no concerns with the foster parents' care.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Anyway, in a case which has already attracted legal criticism on ethnic fit, they could hardly afford not to check out suitability. Even if the odds are in practice low, they could hardly afford the assumption that they were zero. Not in a sensitive case.
I think situations like these becomes explicable when one considers the odd legal situation within which social services have to operate. Barnabas62 (who I think is being given a hard go here) mentioned judicial review earlier.
Judicial review is the standard court action for challenging a decision by an officer of the state. It is very unlike a standard court action in that the judge is not supposed to consider the quality of the officer's decision, but merely consider whether it has been legally made. This is because judges - although experts in law - are not experts in town planning, immgration policy, or fostering for example. The theory goes that they should not substitute their own view for that of the town planning officer, immigration officer or child protection officer because they are more likely than those officers to bollox up the whole thing.
In theory therefore, the law provides social services officers with broad powers which they are assumed to be able to exercise competently - with the courts only needing to step in when something has clearly gone wrong. Unless the officer concerned has transgresses the law, he or she is free to exercise the powers of the state.
(I leave aside the extent of child support officers' powers, and the secrecy under which they operate, but I have no doubt that the thought of those powers makes the public shudder when a scandal like this hits the press.)
I suspect that human rights legislation has horrendously complicated judicial review in recent years. In certain areas - immigration for one - but clearly fostering also - human rights can come in at every turn, and every decision can have human rights implications. This means that the difference between legality of an officer's decisions and their quality on the other gets abolished - if a human right is wrongly applied or not applied at all - the decision becomes illegal and the judge is obligated to intervene.
As an aside (and this is certainly an issue for another thread) this is why human rights legislation can cause real problems.
I think this must be pretty tough for social workers. For very obvious reasons, they're not trained in law but social services. Yet because of the legal background against which they operate, they have to try and comprehend the law too. There must be a great temptation to concentrate on making a decision legally rather than well. It would explain why social workers might take refuge in standard procedures etc regardless of outcome (was was the case in Haringey) or might make a knee-jerk response because of previous judicial criticism (as was the case here).
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
I don't agree.
UKIP may have suddenly become all respectable in the eyes of many, but they remain a fringe party with probably more anti-foreign bigotry in its ranks than the Tories.
Rotherham's mistake was not finding out whether in fact the foster parents were racists. That is what makes their reaction so wrong and Orwellian.
Close to my position on this. I'm just not sure I'd classify a prejudice about immigrants as racism. I am pretty sure that the immigration policy attracts anti-foreign bigotry to the ranks but I'd classify the policy itself as nationalistic, rather than anti-foreign bigotry.
Assumption of immigrant prejudice is wrong. Checking to make sure there isn't such a prejudice just looks like proper precautionary supervision by a supervisor with a clear duty of care. Particularly in these circumstances.
But I don't think there's any resolution of that particular debating impasse here.
[Edited to add, because of cross post]
Thanks for your understanding, Cod.
[ 27. November 2012, 08:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
If the children are facing xenophobic attitudes from schoolmates and society around them, the foster parents' ability to support them might be compromised by their membership of UKIP. UKIP posters in people's windows at election time would be a very obvious part of the hostile environment within which the children would need support, and coming home to a house with its own UKIP poster, for instance, would probably feel very undermining.
There's the rest of the family to think about, too - grandparents, uncles and aunts, and the other children, natural or fostered, of the foster parents. We haven't a clue, rightly, about those dynamics. But I can see that there could be reasons to think UKIP membership was a problem even though there was no evidence of racist behaviour. Sometimes it's about who you line up with.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
hatless
I think there might be the sort of difficulties you describe, both for the children and for any concerned family members. But I doubt whether they are insuperable.
If there is a good and open relationship with the supervising social worker (and the child's social worker if the two are different ) then good practical arrangements can be made for the sake of the child.
In the case I mentioned previously (evangelical foster carers looking after a Muslim child) there were very good and very practical discussions over "in yer face" stuff.
IME also, Chief of Sinners is right about the openness required of foster carers. The willingness of foster carers to do what's best in a specific placement seems to be a normal part of the role. "What's best" often needs quite a lot of detailed consideration.
It is encouraging to see what can be achieved when there is good will. It should come as no great surprise that things can go wrong if that good will is damaged.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
You're probably right, B62; I certainly agree about how important open relationships are.
My instinct is to look for the best possible construction I can put on what looks like a very poor decision. Social workers are often severely criticised, but as in many areas of life, seeing the whole picture makes things look very different.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that doesn't answer my point - if there is other information about the parents, the social workers are duty bound not to release it, and I assume, the Council likewise.
As I said, the tabloids will be desperate to get hold of this info, if it exists, so let's hope the confidentiality sticks.
What the council might or might not have found out is irrelevant - unless they were lying when they said they had no concerns with the foster parents' care.
But presumably what social workers may have found out is not irrelevant, is it?
I also assume it will not be released to the right-wing press!
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hawk, you are entirely free to check out closely my views and my reasons for them on this website. It's just a discussion after all.
But it just strikes me as ironic that you are so reluctant to give a supervisory social worker a similar freedom to check out the views of two foster-carers whose caring on behalf of the local authority is actually subject to that worker's supervision. Foster-carers are not autonomous in the carrying out of their duties. And what they do in that role is a heck of a lot more important than us shooting the breeze here.
Thank you B62 for the link. Sorry for the combativeness in my previous posts BTW. I appreciate the subtleties of your argument.
I am perfectly happy with social workers making whatever checks they deem appropriate. Just because IMO they are barking up the wrong tree, checking on its own doesn’t hurt. In this case we aren’t talking about a random couple picked off the streets however. I haven’t been a foster carer myself and I may be wrong, but I assume that this couple have been extremely stringently checked already. I would imagine, especially considering the case of these children had already been criticised by the courts, the social services checked out the views of these parents quite thoroughly to find out their capability and suitability for fostering culturally different children before the children were placed in their care. If these pre-checks weren’t carried out, and the children were just handed over to the care of someone who hadn't been checked already by the social worker, then this is a considerable failing to begin with.
Assuming however that these checks were fully carried out, and the social worker had asked the appropriate questions like: “these children are migrants, what are your views on migrant children?” and received a satisfactory answer, and taken that there was no subsequent problem with the couple’s care. And that no information was received, anonymously or otherwise, that the couple were mistreating, neglecting, or otherwise harming the children, or failing to provide for their cultural heritage, in fact the opposite, that they were making specific efforts to learn the language and take the child to an appropriate religious service. In this situation receiving information that the couple were members of UKIP should, in my opinion, have raised no red flags at all, or led the social worker to consider that any checks out of the ordinary were required. The couple have already been checked, the social worker is already confident they aren’t racists or bigoted, otherwise they wouldn’t have been given the children in the first place. Maybe, at a regular follow-up meeting, the social worker could have mentioned the couple’s political affiliation and asked a couple of relevant questions, just to make sure. It’s their job after all, as you say. But that’s about as much as I think would have been necessary or helpful in this case.
Of course, as others have said, we don’t know all the facts. Maybe confidentiality hides a multitude of issues.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There's a lot in what you say there, Hawk. Your post demonstrates very well, I think, the importance of good relationships between foster-carers and supervising social workers.
quote:
Maybe, at a regular follow-up meeting, the social worker could have mentioned the couple’s political affiliation and asked a couple of relevant questions, just to make sure
I agree if a good and candid working relationship existed, that kind of approach may have been all that was required, plus a note for the record. But as DT so succinctly put it
quote:
Hmm, court criticised them - then legal advice supported the criticism. Seems then social services got very twitchy
You probably know the old army motto about twitchyness?
"We must do something
This is something
So let's do it."
Fear can sometimes drive people into less-than-best choices.
But let's see what comes out. It doesn't look good for Rotherham at this stage but maybe there were factors as work hidden by the needs of confidentiality.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I would imagine, especially considering the case of these children had already been criticised by the courts, the social services checked out the views of these parents quite thoroughly to find out their capability and suitability for fostering culturally different children before the children were placed in their care... In this situation receiving information that the couple were members of UKIP should, in my opinion, have raised no red flags at all, or led the social worker to consider that any checks out of the ordinary were required. The couple have already been checked, the social worker is already confident they aren’t racists or bigoted, otherwise they wouldn’t have been given the children in the first place.
My thoughts exactly. Presumably the foster parents had already been vetted and approved, both in general terms and for these particular children, so I'm a bit alarmed that membership of a legitimate political party was seen as grounds to end the foster placement. It's a wild over-reaction, ISTM.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
I don't agree.
UKIP may have suddenly become all respectable in the eyes of many, but they remain a fringe party with probably more anti-foreign bigotry in its ranks than the Tories.
Rotherham's mistake was not finding out whether in fact the foster parents were racists. That is what makes their reaction so wrong and Orwellian.
All I'm hearing is bigotry on the Left is perfectly acceptable because those on the Right hold views that we right on Lefties don't like.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ Beexwax Altar
Maybe you have an unusual form of tinnitus?
Joking aside, it might help if you would explain what you see as bigotry. If proven that the UKIP couple had the children taken away from them purely because of their political affiliation, I'd agree that was a bigoted decision. So far as I can make out that's a view that has already attracted a lot of support.
So where's the rest of the bigotry?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The fact the UKIP is signaled out for special scrutiny based on what are perfectly legitimate political positions to take. Lefties don't like those political positions. However, none of those positions, even the ones held by the 37%, suggest members of the UKIP wouldn't be able to foster children. Their views of the UKIP on immigration are irrelevant. As Hawk said, I can believe immigrants should be repatriated and still provide excellent care for the children of immigrants.
The left might not be any more prone to moral vanity than the right or center but this is certainly an example of moral vanity on the Left. Behinds the distrust of the UKIP is the assumption that only mean, nasty people can advocate the policy positions of the UKIP. That's simply wrong. Members of the UKIP shouldn't be required to prove they aren't mean, nasty people based on their political positions. Can we take seriously all the negative stereotypes Tories apply to Labour and then give extra scrutiny to foster parents belonging to Labour based on those stereotypes?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
We may be in violent agreement again. Of course folks who are members of UKIP can be foster parents and there should be no bar against that. I would extend that argument to the 37% (sample evidence) who have what seem to me to be extreme views on deportation. It is however necessary to check whether the views on immigration would affect their fostering of immigrant children. That is a reasonable supervisory check. Particularly given the requirement to look after cultural and ethnic needs and the parallel requirement to find "best fit".
Would you deny a supervisor the freedom to ask questions about that? I think I would do so only if there were reasons to believe the supervisor was bigoted. Either way. It would be wrong to assume that the supervisor would be unfair.
I do not see this process as bigoted. If you do, we must agree to differ on that point. But only on that point.
[Edited to remove a double-negative]
[ 27. November 2012, 17:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Asking any additional questions of UKIP party members not asked of Labour party members is discriminatory. The same set of questions regarding immigration and multiculturalism should be asked of all potential foster parents. Party affiliation should have nothing to do with it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
One of the grey areas in the Rotherham information concerns the standards of applied to the initial recruitment of this couple - which was apparently done externally.
I agree that the same standards should be applied on recruitment to all candidates regardless of party affiliation.
But I wouldn't want to limit the scope of a supervisor to ask pertinent (rather than impertinent) "best fit" questions in connection with a specific fit. So far as immigrant children are concerned, because of party policy differences over immigration, political affiliation may be an issue.
hatless has indicated some of the practical issues associated with immigrant fostering in his post. There aren't insuperable difficulties, but they need to be talked about by the supervisor and the foster couple.
In fact, candid communication about these issues is more likely to be produce a better overall result than pretending there aren't any potential issues. That's exactly what I learned through the experiences of the evangelical couple who fostered a Muslim.
That sort of approach seems a heck of a lot better to me than inhibiting discussions because we're bothered they might be in some sense unfair.
Political and religious affiliations may present a bit of a challenge to best-fit fostering; so there should be room to talk. That's a practical, pragmatic approach. I favour it.
Beeswax Altar, did I just note an element of political correctness in your desire to be transparently even-handed?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Should card-carrying members of political parties which are committed to ensuring that gay people should be able to marry be quizzed about their appropriateness as foster parent for Catholic children, just for being party members?
Should people who are committed to keeping abortion legal and to opposing any restrictions on it be quizzed about that before being allowed to foster Catholic children?
If one's answer to either of those questions is no, you might want to consider whether one is being consistent if one holds that belonging to a party which wants to have stricter restrictions on immigration to the UK should in itself constitute a hurdle to be jumped for those wishing to foster.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
Beeswax
quote:
Asking any additional questions of UKIP party members not asked of Labour party members is discriminatory. The same set of questions regarding immigration and multiculturalism should be asked of all potential foster parents.
They are, however throughout one's fostering career (if it can be called a career) questions are asked and asked again. Each time a child is placed their social worker will want to investigate your views and they will home in on points that interest them. Everytime you go before the panel each year to confirm your status as a foster carer and when a panel is considering making a placment permanent they will question you. In my case we are often asked about supporting people of other faiths, if we would force children to attend church and our views on same sex relationships. I suspect we are asked these questions more often than other carers because we are practising Christians and some Christians (Stephen Green) have expressed views which would be incompatible with caring for some children. Other carers are asked about subjects which may have been mentioned just in passing to us. Social workers want to make sure that we are not in that group. Call it discrimination if you wish but for me it is about social workers and other panel members having the freedom to ask what is on their mind and not have to stick to a one size fits all set of questions.
If you don't want every aspect of your life picked over and every opinion you hold tested don't sign up to care for other people's children on behalf of the state
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
No, I call it bigotry and discrimination because that's what it is.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Should card-carrying members of political parties which are committed to ensuring that gay people should be able to marry be quizzed about their appropriateness as foster parent for Catholic children, just for being party members?
Should people who are committed to keeping abortion legal and to opposing any restrictions on it be quizzed about that before being allowed to foster Catholic children?
How would either of those things impact their ability to look after those children? Being opposed to immigration from EU countries could quite reasonably be a problem when looking after... immigrants from EU countries. Catholic children would be totally unaffected by foster parents being in favour of equal marriage or being pro-choice. What might be more of an issue is if devout Catholic children are housed with a non-Catholic family and so aren't able to attend mass.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like there is much to criticise, much to reform, in Rotherham.
There has been much to criticise and much to reform in Rotherham for years. It's not so long ago that the council were in special measures and their children's services has been the subject of scrutiny for some time. Scroll down this article (sorry about it being the Mirror - it was the first reference I found!) or take a look at the 2009 Ofsted report . Having been judged as poor in 2009 explains the yearly Ofsted inspections subsequently and even in 2011 children's services there was only judged 'adequate'. I wonder how they will do under the latest regime of inspections, which are focusing purely on frontline delivery of services.
This decision was purely political and should never have been taken.
I am glad that the coalition government is amending the Adoption Bill to ensure the same approach towards ethnicity which is being proposed when considering potential adopters is also to be taken when assessing foster carers. While I can sympathise to an extent with the reasoning behind ethnicity being a consideration, the situation has become ridiculous, not only because good, non-racist people are vulnerable to just this kind of politically motivated action but also because children have been left waiting in children's homes when perfectly good foster carers and adopters have been available who just happen to be of a different skin colour or have a different mix of nationality to the children awaiting placement.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
quote:
Should card-carrying members of political parties which are committed to ensuring that gay people should be able to marry be quizzed about their appropriateness as foster parent for Catholic children, just for being party members?
Should people who are committed to keeping abortion legal and to opposing any restrictions on it be quizzed about that before being allowed to foster Catholic children?
Whether they should be or not is a question but they are, at least to a degree. Many children are looked after at the request of their birth parents who have asked for help and still have parental responsibility. In such cases we have known parents to object to a placement because of the colour of one of the foster carers and the child was moved, both in case the parent removes consent for the child to be cared for forcing social services either to take legal action to protect the child by keeping them in care or allowing the child to return to their parents.
A child placed from a Catholic family would expect their religious and cultural needs to be met. Arrangements for the child to attend church would be made and nothing in the foster home should diliberately undermine the teaching of their church. In same way that a Muslim child would expect the same level of consideration. I would expect to be up before the panel if I denounced the teaching of a child's religion. Exposure to wider views from those outside the home is one thing but indoctrination within it quite another.
Fostering is not adoption nor is it the same as raising your own child, it is caring for someone else's child as their substitute
[ 27. November 2012, 20:02: Message edited by: Chief of sinners ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How would either of those things impact their ability to look after those children? Being opposed to immigration from EU countries could quite reasonably be a problem when looking after... immigrants from EU countries.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
Fostering is not adoption nor is it the same as raising your own child, it is caring for someone else's child as their substitute
This. Foster-carers need to be flexible in order to substitute. A condition which applies to all foster-carers. So they are going to get taken out of their own comfort-zones (whatever they are). Some people can cope with that better than others. And everyone has their limits.
It's a complication in seeking the best-available fit, obviously. I'm sure foster-carers are expected to be willing to take just about anyone in emergencies but be honest about their own tolerance limits when longer-term placements are in the air. And I'm equally sure that some folks are better in the emergency role than others; while some will be better in the long term role than others.
I don't think foster-caring is for perfectionists, whatever they might be perfectionist about. I'm also pretty sure that even with the best recruitment/selection processes, tolerance limits get missed, get found out by real placements. People don't necessarily know in advance what their limits are.
Supervising social workers have their work cut out. So do foster-carers. While the overall aim is easy to say, in practice people aren't chameleons, able to morph effortlessly from one substitute role to another. While it might be a lot less hassle if they were like that, that isn't the real world.
We've never fostered, but have known enough who do to have gained that kind of picture of "situation normal". Not just "normal for Norfolk" either. Happy to have it corrected by any Shipmates who live it. That's the way it looks to us, based on lots of chats with the brave souls who do it.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
I don't agree.
UKIP may have suddenly become all respectable in the eyes of many, but they remain a fringe party with probably more anti-foreign bigotry in its ranks than the Tories.
Rotherham's mistake was not finding out whether in fact the foster parents were racists. That is what makes their reaction so wrong and Orwellian.
All I'm hearing is bigotry on the Left is perfectly acceptable because those on the Right hold views that we right on Lefties don't like.
What's so right-wing about wanting to restrict immigration?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Should people who are committed to keeping abortion legal and to opposing any restrictions on it be quizzed about that before being allowed to foster Catholic children?wishing to foster.
I fail to see the relevance. It is not as if any such foster parent would be likely to abort the foster children, after all.
You will accept, I'm sure, that it would be relevant to ask the foster parents' views on (I assume Roman) Catholicism generally.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Having worked with fostering situations going wrong from the school end, it really is important that foster carers can cope. One girl's outworking of her abuse was promiscuity. It's really common in abuse cases. The foster carer could not deal with this at all, and the relationship broke down entirely over a couple of very painful years with a lot of collateral damage in other areas.
The bottom line is that if children / teenagers don't feel safe and parented their behaviour is affected, their schooling is affected, they often then end up in the groups that are truanting and getting into legal trouble.
Fostering is often temporary, so many children in foster care are already unsettled and wondering what is going to happen to them. For many of them they are waiting for the results of court cases and hearings to know if they are going to stay in care, be put up for adoption or return to their parents. Foster carers have to be super parents to cope.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm sure that's true, CK. And it's all the more reason why foster-carers need to be supported in their role. They aren't autonomous of necessity and the relationship with the supervising social worker is a really key factor in all of that. Not being able to cope on one's own is just normal when things get very difficult. Being properly supported in crises may lead to an improvement in coping, or a humble recognition that "this one really isn't for you". That's sad. So it's better if coping limits, suitability are recognised in advance, so far as they can be. Clearly that is one of the pressures on supervising social workers. It's an imperfect world of restricted choices. Sometimes I guess they just have to take a view, take a chance, recognise the possibility that a placement may go wrong even as they make it.
Capability, coping are dynamic things. Even when the portents are good for a specific fit, things can go badly wrong.
It's in this context that I truly believe in the central importance of good relationships, good communications, between supervising social worker and foster-carers. As you say, it can be a very difficult role; coping cannot be assumed for theoretical reasons.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Apologies for not reading all 3 pages and possibly missing this, but... isn't there a basic logic problem with assuming membership of political party = support for all of that party's policies?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There sure is, orfeo. There's a difference between seeing a possibility and assuming a certainty.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apologies for not reading all 3 pages and possibly missing this, but... isn't there a basic logic problem with assuming membership of political party = support for all of that party's policies?
Yes, but not if the reason that party exists is because of one policy and in this case it is anti-foreigners, especially those in the UK.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I know very, very little about the UKIP. But one of the few things I've read was that they gradually expanded their policy base precisely because they DIDN'T want to be seen as single issue.
I mean, you could say the Greens existed for one reason. They've moved on.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
BNP, yes, UKIP, no. Otherwise Nigel Farage wouldn't be married to a German, would he?
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
BNP, yes, UKIP, no. Otherwise Nigel Farage wouldn't be married to a German, would he?
OK, I used too broad a generalisation/ brushstroke but that brushstroke is still wide.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
[Missed edit window but last post was reply to Mr Clingford. Plus what Orfeo said.]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Cod:
What's so right-wing about wanting to restrict immigration?
Nothing...that's my point. Since you recognize that lefties can favor immigration restriction wouldn't it make sense to make sure all foster parents are capable of fostering immigrant children instead of just focusing on UKIP members? Instead, UKIP members receive special scrutiny and that's bigotry.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Preeee-cisely!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Lord, this is going round in circles again!
We don't know for sure whether the particular couple's UKIP membership pre-dated or post-dated their original recruitment as carers but it seems very likely that it did post-date it. They had been working as foster carers for 7 years. We do know that they changed their political allegiance relatively recently.
There is an implication, not a certainty, that the original emergency placement was made without knowing about the change of political allegiance.
We know that the children come from a migrant background.
Matt, Beeswax Altar.
Are you seriously suggesting that, in this specific case, it would have been wrong for any supervising social worker worth his salt even to ask a question or two to test whether their changed political views might have any impact on suitability?
Supervising social workers are not expected to be thought police, but neither are they expected to be mind-readers. There is a working relationship there. The foster carers have an accountability within it.
Even a question shows a bias? In those circumstances?
[ 28. November 2012, 15:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
They would also be duty-bound to inform the birth-parents, wouldn't they? And if they objected, to act on that, I assume.
I also assume that we will never know, unless there is a special dispensation to reveal information.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Barnabas62:
Are you seriously suggesting that, in this specific case, it would have been wrong for any supervising social worker worth his salt even to ask a question or two to test whether their changed political views might have any impact on suitability?
Yes!!!! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Treating an anonymous tip that the foster parents are members of the UKIP any differently than an anonymous tip that the foster parents are members of the Labour Party is bigotry.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
You can ask the same question(s) that you would ask in response to knowing that someone was a member of the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, the Conservatives or the Greens. If the social services department can demonstrate that they do ask those questions evenhandedly, then fine.
But, in any event, they did rather more than just ask a question or two, didn't they?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Matt
You've missed my point. I critised them for making the judgment they made. I said they would not have been wrong to ask a question in these cirucmstances.
Beeswax Altar
It's a working relationship. A supervisor can ask if the tip off is true simply because it has been received. The previous political allegiance was in fact Labour, according to press reports. Would you deny the supervisor that question?
It can only be denied if the change is irrelevant to care of migrant children.
You and I cannot possibly know that it is irrelevant. A change of political allegiance to the extent of joining a different party is actually a major move. It is an indicator of a possible value shift since the original commitment to foster caring. In particular in this case since UKIP has a more prescriptive and proscriptive view of immigrants than the three main political parties in the UK.
I'd say the supervisor has a duty to check that if the tip-off re UKIP membership is confirmed to be true. It is an assumption that any value shift has no bearing on the original assessment.
None of that means the couple could not represent a safe placement in this case, nor does it mean that they would not continue as foster carers even if the supervisor judged that a change might produce a better fit.
You are seeing bias when there is a clear professional need to confirm suitability.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
...as long as they also ask the same question for membership of any other political party.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is also a professional need to inform the birth parents, isn't there, and ask them if they object to the new situation?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
[Slight tangent] I do like Private Eye's take on it, which has Joyce Thacker saying "Why can't the children be fostered by a group of nice Asian men?" [/slight tangent]
Posted by Chill (# 13643) on
:
The thing is there are clearly divergent versions of events. The foster parents claim to have been told that the children were being removed because they were members of a racist party. If this is an accurate synopsis of events then the social workers allegations are demonstrably false. This is a condition of UKIP membership:
quote:
“I.6 Membership is not available to anyone who is or has previously been a member of the British National Party, the National Front, the UK First party, the English Defence League, the British Freedom Party and the Britain First Party (or any other parties or organisations later added to the proscribed list). Any applications made from people who are or have been members of these organisations will be refused, and any subscriptions collected will be refunded. By making an application for membership, the applicant certifies that he is not and has never been a member of either of these parties.”
It can be found in this document:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPOfficialRulesofProcedure.pdf
It is clear and demonstrable evidence that UKIP wants no association with fascist and racist organisations. Rotherham social services do not dispute that party affiliation was the cause for the decision. They have defended their decision. They do however give a more nuanced account of how it was applied claiming that they had responded to the cultural needs of the children in this instance. They deny suggesting that UKIP is a racist political party. The first question is who do you believe? Given the shambolic state of affairs in South Yorkshire I am inclined to believe the foster parents. Nearby Doncaster is on its eighth serious case review. It has highlighted seriousness and systemic failings in the protection of vulnerable children.
Children’s Services in Rotherham have just clawed their way out from government intervention, but have only received an adequate assessment from Ofsted (the regulatory body). Bear in mind that in UKGOV newspeak adequate should be assumed to be prefixed with the phrase ‘not really’. Also Rotherham Social services have just been criticised in a serious case review regarding the murder of a young woman in the town. Please see sleepwalker’s excellent post for references if you doubt me.
South Yorkshire Police have been hauled up before a Parliamentary Select Comity and told to "get a grip" on the child sexual exploitation which is rife in the town. There is a problem with what amounts to the pimping of underage girls by criminal gangs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-19966721
Keith Vaz has indicated on twitter that Council leaders will be up before the committee next. So I can draw only one of two conclusions ether the foster Carers are lying or some halfwit with an agenda who can’t tell the difference between the NF and MFI has gone in with both size nines. It seems most probable that the catalogue of incompetence form the powers that be in Rotherham has continued. It seems that the authorities in Rotherham are about as much use as a cock flavoured lolly pop at a lesbian luncheon.
Even if I am wrong there is a second question to answer. The second question is can we in a western democracy allow economic pressure or clear disadvantage to be inflicted by a public body due to ones choice of vote. I feel that only in the most extreme cases can such a step be justified. In clear cases of fascist or radicalised pro-terrorist political bodies there is obviously a case to be answered. However, UKIP is not such a party.
Furthermore, this is not like recognising that our culture faith and other values may impinge on our ability to effectively carry out some tasks and roles. Recognising that seems eminently sensible. This is a question of enfranchisement. Except in the most extreme of cases, questioning how we chose to vote should be off limits to both employers and any organ of the state. To me this seems utterly self-evident. The right to an un-coerced vote is the fundamental bedrock of our system of political governance and to allow unelected officialdom to erode it is deeply perilous.
Chaz
[ 28. November 2012, 18:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Chill (# 13643) on
:
Very, Sorry I dont know what I did wrong here. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Is there a need to ask Roman Catholic parents if they mind their children being fostered by pro-choice or pro-gay marriage foster parents? Is there a need to ask UKIP parents if they mind their children being fostered by Labour foster parents? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then yes. If the answer to both of those questions is no, then the answer is no.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Family wishes are respected, Beeswax Altar.
And on my professional point, if for example a previously Catholic couple were fostering and it was discovered that they had become agnostic/joined the Labour Party, the supervising social worker would need to check what the impact would be on them fostering Catholic children. Might they be tempted to display revised opinions on birth control, abortion, etc because they believed their revised values were somehow better?
The suitable fit argument is neutral in terms of the need to check a possible value change.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A change of political allegiance to the extent of joining a different party is actually a major move. It is an indicator of a possible value shift since the original commitment to foster caring. In particular in this case since UKIP has a more prescriptive and proscriptive view of immigrants than the three main political parties in the UK.
You are of course assuming that a Labour supporter could never possibly think that (a) immigration should be controlled, and/or (b) the UK should be independent of the EU! An erroneous assumption. Also, it was Labour who brought in a system of controlled immigration in the latter years of their recent rule and so the shift may not actually be a shift at all, just a belief that UKIP may get the job done properly now that the Labour party has a new leader. Speculation about someone's political allegience is not sufficient reason to trigger disrupting a good foster placement in children's services I've worked for but then I've only worked for good children's services.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I am assuming absolutely nothing at all. This couple were members/supporters of the Labour party (or so it appears from press reports) at the time of selection and appraisal seven years ago. So that selection and appraisal would have taken into account the values they displayed at the time. My understanding of the process is that the original selection/appraisal processes do not assume values because of political affiliation. It's not a case, for example, of the process saying "Labour voter therefore OK handling immigration children". Things get tested on the basis of the different life experiences and backgrounds of children you might be expected to foster.
Therefore any record of values and preferences made during the initial appraisal may have become out of date because of a major change in political or religious commitment. Those values and preferences may not have changed at all, of course. But you can't be sure that is the case, can you?
All this is on the basis of my understanding from foster-carers I know of how the system works of course.
You are assuming things about me and the selection process which are certainly not correct in my case and not correct about initial appraisal processes as I understand them from foster-carer friends and acquaintances. As i understand it, what is tested is flexibility, not political affiliation.
I appreciate it is an easy point to get confused about. As I've said earlier, I got my head put straight considering the experiences of evangelical friends entrusted by the supervising social worker (and the family) with the care of a Muslim child.
[ 28. November 2012, 19:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You are assuming things about me and the selection process which are certainly not correct in my case and not correct about initial appraisal processes as I understand them from foster-carer friends and acquaintances. As i understand it, what is tested is flexibility, not political affiliation.
I know the fostering process from the inside out: I have sat on fostering panels and worked for children's services (including fostering and adoption). I work for children's services at present, and that has included contact with the fostering and adoption procedures.
Foster carers are assessed on a multitude of things, right down to what play equipment they have in their garden! However, I have never known any foster carers to be assessed on their political affiliation, which is why I suggest that this incident is about ignorance and political prejudice. I note that Rotherham has initiated an internal investigation. It is unlikely that this would have been done had they been wholly convinced that the decision was the correct one.
On your point about flexibility, this is of course important but there is an element of matching between carer and child on numerous levels. For example, some foster carers will take babies while others will foster older children. This is useful and appropriate because children's services then know that when they have to place a child of a certain age, especially in an emergency situation, having foster carers who 'specialise' in particular age groups, for example, provides immediate experience, knowledge and resources suitable to the age range of that child, thus increasing their chances of finding a settled placement.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Foster carers are assessed on a multitude of things, right down to what play equipment they have in their garden! However, I have never known any foster carers to be assessed on their political affiliation, which is why I suggest that this incident is about ignorance and political prejudice. I note that Rotherham has initiated an internal investigation. It is unlikely that this would have been done had they been wholly convinced that the decision was the correct one.
On your point about flexibility, this is of course important but there is an element of matching between carer and child on numerous levels. For example, some foster carers will take babies while others will foster older children. This is useful and appropriate because children's services then know that when they have to place a child of a certain age, especially in an emergency situation, having foster carers who 'specialise' in particular age groups, for example, provides immediate experience, knowledge and resources suitable to the age range of that child, thus increasing their chances of finding a settled placement.
All of that is common territory. In the detailed discussions I have never defended the Rotherham actions as they were.
The reason I have been getting such an inquisition here is that I have been strongly defending the right of the supervising social worker to check out with the couple any changes in their flexibility which may have arisen through their political change of heart. Simply to ask questions through the normal working relationship which would exist in an emergency placement.
Not to pre-judge any outcome from those conversations on political grounds, but to check for professional reasons their continuing flexibility. In this case, the migrant status of the children's parents seemed to me to justify a question or two. But for professional reasons, not political reasons.
I have absolutely no sense from the newspaper articles and media interviews that anything like that happened. I'm saying it would have been better if that had happened, that's all. It really does look as though far too much has been pre-judged.
On the basis of the press reports, I am very disturbed by the Rotherham actions for the same reasons you give.
I hope that is clear. Please feel free to check out my previous posts on this. I hope to have been consistent throughout in what I've written.
I am very much on the side of those who are seeing that Rotherham has a lot of explaining to do. And probably a lot of changing as well.
But I do not want this disquiet over political bias to be seen as justifying conversational "handcuffing" of a professional supervising social worker in asking relevant questions in the pursuit of duties and responsibilities.
[ 28. November 2012, 22:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I hope you will understand that I feel a little battered this morning! Normally, my general view that what we do here is "shooting the breeze" safeguards me from thin-skinnedness about criticism of views.
So why have I put a lot of effort into defending a hypothetical position in this case when I'm highly critical of what has actually happened? That might be worth a word.
Perhaps unusually, in this day and age, I have a high opinion of the professionalism of the vast majority of social workers and an appreciation of the often mind-boggling complexities and high levels of emotional strain connected with their often thankless and certainly pretty poorly paid jobs. I know a fair number, including several in my local congo. I respect what they do.
Social workers are, very often, their own severest critics. They know that a public display of unprofessionalism damages them, makes their jobs more difficult. There is guilt by association. The bad press that specific actions get is very often (but not always) justified.
So in this case, where it is pretty clear that quite a lot was got wrong, I wanted to explore an alternative. What might getting it right look like?
Actually, I'd like to thank Beeswax Altar, Matt Black, Hawk and Sleepwalker for their close questioning. They are quite right to want to ensure that supervisory processes and social work decisions are, so far as humanly possible, free from political bias. I think their eagle-eyed scrutiny was justified.
What I am hoping to have done in return is to point out that there is a legitimate area of professional questioning that arises from a change of political allegiance. The debate has actually clarified my mind about where that area is, and what its limits are. If I have succeeded in making you see that there is such an area, it is not zero-size, it does have practical value, then I've achieved what I was hoping to achieve.
You're still free to disagree with me, as always. I have appreciated the discussion, but am just a bit knackered by it!
[ 29. November 2012, 07:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
quote:
Perhaps unusually, in this day and age, I have a high opinion of the professionalism of the vast majority of social workers and an appreciation of the often mind-boggling complexities and high levels of emotional strain connected with their often thankless and certainly pretty poorly paid jobs. I know a fair number, including several in my local congo. I respect what they do.
Me too,
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
Sleepwalker said quote:
Speculation about someone's political allegience is not sufficient reason to trigger disrupting a good foster placement in children's services I've worked for but then I've only worked for good children's services.
Just like the best footballers play for the best teams. The best social workers work for good autorities. A good social worker would not want a failing authority on their CV. This means the least good social workers are in the least good authorities a producing a cycle failure
Would a good social worker take a job with Rotherham now? I suspect not because if it were me I would be thinking that I don't want to get caught up in this mess. Meaning that when Rotherham recruit the pool they are able to recruit from will be mainly those not good enough to go elsewhere, meanwhile their best people will be looking to get out. If I lived in South Yorkshire and was considering fostering would I approach Rotherham? Not a chance.
This is true in other areas of life, the best teachers work in the best schools.
To clarify where I have got in this discussion, I said in the OP I had some sympathy for the council's view. I still do, but I feel all that should have happened was a conversation with the foster carers and their supervising social worker rather than the sudden removal of children. If in the conversation something came up which heightened concerns then the council would have had the evidence that these children were not in a suitable place. But if not, which from all reports available including the council's own assessment of the care these children received would have probably been the case, a disruption would have been avoided.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You're still free to disagree with me, as always. I have appreciated the discussion, but am just a bit knackered by it!
Barnabas, I have mainly "sided" with those who disagreed with you here, but I think you've done a cracking job of showing "grace under pressure" and fighting indefatigably for fairness (or does that make you sound too much like a comic book hero?. There's no shame whatsoever in allowing yourself to be a little fatigued now!
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the basis of the press reports, I am very disturbed by the Rotherham actions for the same reasons you give.
From the press reports, it is not yet clear what action occurred.
The Council - quite rightly - isn't going into detail about the children's care.
Under the protection of anonymity the couple involved have been geartting their version intothe press very effectively. This is not to say they are not being truthful about their experience, but it is not the whole story, and it is certainly not complete enough for certain politicians to make pronouncements about it.
Bear in mind when this story broke - on a Saturday (thus guaranteeing two fairly clear days of coverage, and setting it as a media agenda item for Monday morning) just before a bye-election where one party is confident of bolstering its image.
This is not to say Rotherham didn't do anything wrong, nor that there is real grievance on behalf of the couple. However, we, the couple and the children risk being manipulated by a story which it may not even be possible to tell fully until these children are 18.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
dyfrig
Sorry. On the basis of the press reports was inaccurate - I should have also said "and media interviews".
The press reports are damaging but the most compelling evidence is "from the horse's mouth". Here is Joyce Thacker being interviewed by the BBC's Louise Minchin.
Interview
And here is a subsequent statement by the head of Rotherham Council
Statement
A difficult circle to square. UKIP membership is no bar except when we say it is?
As lots of folks here, including me, have said, you can't judge capability to foster in a specific case by political affiliation. The key criteria are the competence and flexibility of the carers to meet the specific fostering needs of a particular case. Prejudice cannot be assumed. Yet according to Joyce Thacker, that was the reason. She ought to know.
They have a lot of explaining to do, dyfrig.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
I heartily agree. Joyce Thacker didn't convince me as someone who had prepared very well for doing the rounds of national media. The problem I have is that Thacker may well have been trying to articulate something that she was not, for legal reasons, able to say fully. In which case she shouldn't have said anything. And the award for Worst Attempt at Damage Limitations Ever goes to......!
Would people's views differ if a fostered child was gay? UKIP's Culture, Media and Sport spokesman stood in Croydon yesterday. If a gay child was placed with a UKIP member, would the party's stance create a welfare issue?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I certainly don't think that Mr McKenzie wouod be a suitable candidate for fostering in such a situation. But I believe his views were his own, not UKIP policy(?)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
dyfrig
My argument was that if there had been a switch to UKIP by foster-carers since the initial vetting assessment, that created an obligation to assess the carers in sensitive cases where some recent value change (in the direction of UKIP policy) might render out of date the previous understanding of the flexibility of the carers.
And that's a principle to apply to any evidence of a possible major change of view over values. You have to check it out. But fairly, not assuming that new party members (or say people who had switched religious adherence) had lost their previous fostering flexibilities. That's fair to them, fair to the social work team, and necessary in the best interests of the child (and other family members expressing views).
I'm pretty sure from the actual words of Joyce Thacker's interview that nothing like that was done in this case. They discussed the situation amongst themselves. If, conversely, something like that had been done, no need to bring UKIP membership into the picture at all.
"A sensitive case, therefore we checked closely. These are very good carers, had done a very competent emergency job. After an honest discussion with them, we concluded that a move to a different couple provided a better fit. Nothing in this should be seen to affect out high regard for the couple or our intention to place children with them in the future"
End of story. Instead, Joyce Thacker gave it an accelerating spin.
There may be hidden information concerning the status of the parents or the views of other concerned family members, but nothing to justify not talking to the emergency carers and reviewing risks and suitability before making a decision. There cannot be much wrong with the carers in view of the quite specific public assurances about the emergency care they provided.
So I'm not clear what kind of defence they might have.
I suppose there might be something, dyfrig. It's always possible there's something. But that really was a "trainwreck" interview. Even if she misspoke because of nervousness, they still had the option of putting out a correcting statement.
[ 30. November 2012, 09:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
I'm not disagreeing with you, Barnabas. Listening to Thacker, I frankly have no idea what it is they did decide nor why, and it used to be my job to understand what local government officers thought they were doing.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I'm not disagreeing with you, Barnabas. Listening to Thacker, I frankly have no idea what it is they did decide nor why, and it used to be my job to understand what local government officers thought they were doing.
On that basis Ms Thacker may be delivering a line of Doubleplusgoodduckspeak. Whatever she's doing, she isn't doing it well.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
And it'll all come out in the wash! Maybe ...
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I'm not disagreeing with you, Barnabas. Listening to Thacker, I frankly have no idea what it is they did decide nor why, and it used to be my job to understand what local government officers thought they were doing.
She was simply covering up what she knows to be the wrong decision IMO, and not doing a very good job of it. Another indication of that is the way in which in her statement she hides behind the 'complexity' of the case. That is always a sign of a damage limitation exercise that has slipped into desparation!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm not sure she really did know, Sleepwalker. By which I mean the vital point that you don't judge competence and flexibility to provide foster-care on the basis of political affiliation.
On that issue, in the conversation with Louise Minchin, she looked and sounded like an innocent abroad.
I appreciate they needed someone to brief the airways, and it probably had to be her. And I doubt very much whether she'd had to do anything quite like that before. But surely Rotherham must have some kind of press office and press officers able to read the signs? If so, you'd have thought some part of her preparatory brief from a press office would have said something like this.
"For God's sake don't talk about UKIP membership. Talk about professional standards, difficult professional choices, the weather, confidential information, whatever. But don't slag UKIP!!!! There's a bloody by-election coming up. Besides, it'll make you look TERRIBLE."
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
dyfrig
The press reports are damaging but the most compelling evidence is "from the horse's mouth". Here is Joyce Thacker being interviewed by the BBC's Louise Minchin.
Interview
And here is a subsequent statement by the head of Rotherham Council
Statement
A difficult circle to square. UKIP membership is no bar except when we say it is?
As lots of folks here, including me, have said, you can't judge capability to foster in a specific case by political affiliation. The key criteria are the competence and flexibility of the carers to meet the specific fostering needs of a particular case. Prejudice cannot be assumed. Yet according to Joyce Thacker, that was the reason. She ought to know.
They have a lot of explaining to do, dyfrig.
Epic fail!
[Code fix
Gwai, Purg Host]
[ 01. December 2012, 00:50: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Another side to the story.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The Guardian?
I'll take that as seriously as you would something from Fox News. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Guardian?
I'll take that as seriously as you would something from Fox News.
Fox News has a track record of lies and politically convenient errors. The Guardian uncovered the phone hacking scandal. They're not even within shouting distance of each other. Want to try something other than poisoning the well?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Of course not
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Oddly, Alan Rusbridger, the guardian editor in chef is one of the few in the press in favour of fully implementing the Levenson report.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
dyfrig was arguing that there might be an "X"-factor. Looks like there might have been.
But if it was the one described i.e the children might be at risk for reasons not at all directly connected to the character of the foster-carers, it makes even less sense to bring UKIP affiliation into the picture.
No doubt we'll get a fuller picture later.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Yeah, I'm more than a little suspicious of these new revelations.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The article contains allegations about the birth father and living conditions which must have passed scrutiny by the Guardian's lawyers.
Don't think the Guardian would have published those without some independent verification.
Not the most important point, but training/advising social services directors in media-handling will probably get added to somebody's "to do" list. If it wasn't already there ..
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
There's an interesting and insightful comment piece in the Guardian this morning by Barthian theologian and deontological ethicist Stewart Lee.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Difference betwen fostering and adoption comes into play, hatless. Fostering is always seen as temporary (whether short or long term), which is why foster-parents are expected to substitute, rather than replace.
Which is where flexibility comes in.
Of course foster-parents have beliefs and values, which can make the substitute role difficult in practice. I don't believe that support for UKIP means, of necessity, an equal wish to impress UKIP policies on foster-children. (Particularly given the conditions of fostering which foster-parents sign up to when they start.)
There's a prejudice in assuming otherwise. However it might be dressed up. If prospective foster-parents feel it is their duty in some sense to instruct children in the political or religious values they hold dear, they are probably in the wrong role. Why should we believe that temptation is confined to UKIP members?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why should we believe that temptation is confined to UKIP members?
Confined to? We shouldn't. More likely? Of course. A party that holds that cultural difference is undesirable and to be avoided is obviously more likely to have members trying to make others like themselves than is one that celebrates diversity. Given the hostility on the right even to British Gypsy-Roma-Traveller communities it seems only right that considerable care would be taken in finding suitable foster care.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I tried to think of some other reply to the above... but...yeah...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
In any individual case, that's not true either. I've met loads of propagandists on the Left, and I'm from the Left.
Heck, that is what I have been busting a gut over on this thread. It's possible to talk within an already established professional relationship, establish the real position, for the sake of the carers, the children, social services, the wider public interest if any.
It's also unfair to assume anything, even "more likely". That's misusing a generalised belief (whether justified or not) in a particular case. And that's unprofessional. Particularly when you have the freedom and the duty to find out if indeed there are any causes for concern.
(xposted with BA. I tried, Shipmate)
[ 02. December 2012, 09:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If the new information is correct, involving Roma communities, sexual abuse, the possible identification of foster-parents, the right to speak one's mother tongue, the objection to foster-parents belonging to a party opposed to East European immigration (allegedly) - bloody hell, this is so complicated, I'm surprised anyone can make head or tail of it. It seems even more odd (if it's correct) that social workers referred to UKIP membership, since it seems to involve a lot more than that. If this was an emergency fostering, then moving the kids on would be normal procedure, wouldn't it?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Odd, indeed, which is why I'm suspicious of the new version.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
People put the best gloss on things. I can envisage a scenario when the foster carers having to explain that they'd had the children removed said it was because we're UKIP members, rather than the more nuanced: the kids kept running home* because they didn't want to be with us and when the parents brought them back they saw the UKIP notice outside the house and got into a snit, so the whole thing was called into question ...
* one of the fostering break downs I was aware of happened because the children kept running home to their mother
edited to remove a stray letter
[ 02. December 2012, 09:29: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
And maybe leprechauns told the social workers to remove the children from that home and they only concocted this story about the UKIP to sound more believable. Just as much factual evidence to support that as there is your unfounded speculation. More likely, social services removed the children because the foster parents were UKIP because after all only mean, ugly racists belong to the UKIP. The shit hit the fan. Now, all of a sudden, the situation is far more complicated blah, blah, blah.
If any of you believing the new story hook, line, and sinker plan on moving to the United States, I will make you an excellent deal on some ocean front property in Arizona.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
It is quite difficult to get children removed from their birth parents, so I am willing to believe there were allegations of sexual abuse directed against the birth family - as stated in the guardian article. I am also willing to believe that your average uk foster carers don't speak romani.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Now we seem to have a third story, that the new story has been invented to help the social workers get out of a fix, caused by the old story!
So that's three stories now, and this is a postmodern paradise - remember that all narratives have varying degrees of power and privilege attached to them, and so, which version of power and privilege do you want to align yourself with? I haven't a clue.
By the way, that's the fourth story.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
We removed the children from their temporary foster home in order to place them with foster parents who spoke Romani.
(Note how I was able to give that simple explanation without ever once making a comment on the UKIP)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Indeed. I was merely pointing out that there were elements of the guardian article (which you were dismissing out of hand) that were highly plausible.
[ 02. December 2012, 10:07: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Beeswax Altar
The article, if true (and I'm with Doublethink re plausibility) doesn't excuse any bias in treatment of the foster-carers or bias in subsequent statements. In mitigation, it suggests circumstances of unpredecedented difficulty plus a need to act urgently.
That sort of pressure tests everybody, can find both weak spots and unexpected strengths. People get confused.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Good to know easily befuddled bigots are trusted with the well being of the most vulnerable children in Rotterham.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Beeswax Altar: And maybe leprechauns told the social workers to remove the children from that home and they only concocted this story about the UKIP to sound more believable.
The reason this story hit the press in this country was the foster parents saying they'd had the children removed because they were members of UKIP. Which meant we had a lot of politicians jumping on the by-election bandwagon. I was positing a reading that would have explained that. And the press conference with the social worker was concentrating on that aspect.
The sexual abuse allegations suggested in the Guardian article would be a reason to remove the children from the birth parents. The breakdown of a fostering arrangement where the children were making their way back to their birth parents to complain that where they were didn't speak Romani is not unlikely in my experience. The parents returning the children to the foster carers isn't that unlikely either.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But I suppose some people are suggesting that the social workers have actually invented this new stuff, about Roma community, speaking one's mother tongue, sexual abuse, knowing where the foster-parents live, and so on.
And then leaked it to the Guardian.
Is this correct? That is one hell of an allegation, isn't it? If they really have done that, then they will get found out and sacked, I would think.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Ethics aside, it would be an insanely stupid thing to do under close public scrutiny when you know there are at least two inquiries under way.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Good to know easily befuddled bigots are trusted with the well being of the most vulnerable children in Rotterham.
On the issue of bigotry, that sure is the way it looks. I've said that. But bias is normal. Neither you or I are free from that. Sometimes it gets out of hand, becomes bigotry. With good people, it doesn't stay that way. Once it's recognised. You've never been tempted that way?
On the other point, do you think these alleged circumstances are so easy that anyone with half a brain cell ought to have been able to avoid confusion under time pressure? I don't. And I spent a lot of my professional working life dealing with complicated situations involving people and things.
I think that's a pretty harsh judgment. It may turn out to be justified in the end, but no need to rush to it. Even when shooting the breeze.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0