Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What. The. Fuck.
and UKIP has some pretty dodgy views in that area
Probably just so they can tell them how worhtless they are in comparison to the white man i'd imagine. The racist bastards.
to protect some of the most vulnerable and already damaged children. You don't want children of ethnic minorities being placed in the residence of people, who by the nature of the party they support, show very little compassion in the area of multiculturalism and immigration
UKIP's membership base spans a broad range of people, from libertarians (there is a younger, more libertarian wing within UKIP) to disaffected Tories to those who are simply anti-EU. I'm sure there's black and Asian people in the UK as well who might think that aspects of multiculturalism (in its most extreme form, allowing people to live in the UK without making any allowances for the culture of the country they have chosen to live in) or uncontrolled immigration are damaging to the country's wellbeing. It's a completely ridiculous situation.
Any chance you could clarify on what you mean by that?
by excluding 1st, 2nd & 3rd generation Brits from their view of what needs to be protected and sanctified ... but he didn't bite
Nationalists = backward thinking, Empire loving xenophobes to the point of effectively being racists?
/UK/ Nationalists = backward thinking, Empire loving xenophobes to the point of effectively being racists?
Well I'm lost with how the Nationalist thing you were going with ties in, then.
I mean, I'm far from a fan of UKIP's "Disgusted of Romford" attitude to everything. But I have an equal dislike of hard-left politics, and I wouldn't call for everyone whose ever subscribed to the Morning Star to be blanket banned from adopting/fostering children. If there's any evidence that the foster parents have acted in a incontrovertibly bigoted way, then sure, take action. But this doesn't seem to be the case here.
i'd quite like to know the history of the term. Fuck doing any research though. It seems to me like a concept that was designed to fail. Y'know, like how people blame `permissivism` of left-liberalism for everything bad about society, partly to shift the agenda from economic social factors to extremely cosmetic consequences like OH TEENAGERS THESE DAYS WITH THEIR DRINKING AND THEIR SMOKING whilst presenting these things as (problematic) parts of a supposedly hegemonic leftist political structure that HAUNTS BRITAIN or something. The other kinda related part is that it helps attribute far more cultural and political agency to people that are probably most at mercy to the capitalist socio-economic structure. So in that sense it's pretty sadistic.
But anyway, just thought it might be the same for multiculturalism. As in, the people who took up the term used it purely to criticise something that may not exist (when was the last time a nation the size of britain ever had a single unified culture, for instance? I imagine in many ways it's become even more unified since the invention of mass media and cultural homogenisation, but who knows) in order to deflect responsibility and blame from key social agents. Then obviously schools, colleges and the bbc had to take this idea seriously so as not to seem biased, and a ridiculous caricature of what society actually is in practice suddenly become a supposedly credible political idea that hardly anyone believes in or cares about.
i dunno, my walk to work takes a long time.
There has never been nor ever will there have been 'multiculturalist' policies
'Then there is the multiculturalism of fiction. This evokes a liberal, state-led policy of encouraging and supporting cultural difference at the expense of national cohesion. It champions practices, we are told, that have caused segregation, alienation and ghettoisation of racial and religious minorities. This, the argument continues, has laid the basis for an acceptance of abhorrent and barbaric practices, such as honour killings, forced marriages and female genital mutilation, that sacrifice the basic tenets of western, liberal civilisation and universalism at the altar cultural tolerance.
There are several problems with this framing but for now let us just deal with three. First, in most of Europe no such co-ordinated policies ever existed. In many places where "multiculturalism" is currently being read its last rites, it never actually lived in its professed form. "We never had a policy of multiculturalism," explains Mekonnen Mesghena, head of migration and intercultural management at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, responding to Angela Merkel's claim that the "multikulti" experiment had failed. "We had a policy of denial: denial of immigration and of diversity. Now it's like we are waking up from a long trance."
In Britain, it is similarly difficult to discern precisely what critics are referring to beyond the activities of some local councils. In his most recent speech on the subject, David Cameron did not offer one concrete example.'
i guess you can still argue that although it's not a policy of any specific government/institution, it still exists as a consequence of governmental action. Sort of like globalisation, except.. obviously nothing like globalisation. You know what i mean though.
They're probably better off in a home and not with a family who cared enough to take them in.
Lucky you have the facts to hand. DanielKelly was just guessing.
There are loads of them going, afterall. Kids probably enjoyed the adventure of being uprooted again, too.
but my supervising social worker girlfriend says there should be placements out there for them, so we'll say I'm right.
Their's is a seditious, creeping and publically acceptable form of racism.
Oh, and Michael Gove has SUCH a cuntface!
They aren't out and out racists on a party level (although their five year moratorium on immigration borders on it). They play the immigration card and the multiculturalism card very carefully, looking to subtly suggest that all the problems can be fixed by leaving the EU and stopping the foreigners coming here to take our jobs and money and wimmin.
On an individual level some of them are most definitely racist. Didn't one of them write a pro-Breivik blog or something a year or so back? And Lord Monckton actively encouraged BNP members to join them. Farage hangs around with Geert Wilders and other islamophobes. Not to mention his frankly embarrassing tirade against Van Rompuy which revealed him to be a pompous little englander to the whole world.
Also I entirely piss on your suggestion they are libertarians. Libertarianism my arse. True libertarians don't give a shit about immigration or where you come from. They're nasty,
A party like UKIP will continue to attract these kind of closet nutjobs. Which means they become very dangerous even if they lack they kind of ideologue hate figure that griffin is.
You know full well you find racist nutjobs like that in the grassroots of any political party. It's in no way just a UKIP problem. I don't even think there's any evidence to suggest that these nutjobs are even more prevelant/prominent within UKIP - just by virtue of the fact it's such a small party it's easy for these people to seem greater in number rather than getting lost in the haze of the larger memberships of Labour/Tories etc.
Tbh it's not even nationalist, it's just anti-foreigner and anti-european.
I'm not doubting what you say about these types existing in all parties (hell I worked with a pretty questionable labour party member on this count) , but percentage wise I'll bet there's a lot more 'questionable' view holders in UKIP than in other parties because of their policy base.
Second time that word has popped up without qualification in the same way that "liberal" and "socialist" often do. Hmmm, interesting.
Also, the Tories' hands are hardly clean, seeing as they're part of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists who are hardly a great bunch o' lads.
in either case, why bother with it in the first place?
I said there was a libertarian tendency amongst some younger newcomers to the party as some of the more libertarian young Conservatives have defected from the Tories over the last couple of years.
AS FAR AS I KNOW
of the rights adults of certain political persuasions and not the needs of vulnerable young children. Still, if the reports are accurate, this is a disaster for the children involved- families willing and able to foster are few and far between and a childhood in an institution is virtually a guarantee of a deprived adult life.
But I'll take any opportunity to rage about UKIP.
calm down, Dickens
but Joyce Thacker is pretty notorious for wanting her name in the papers, I really REALLY hope she didn't sign this off with the fact there would be publicity in mind.
They should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
Well, you are now
As to your being a patronising prick, I'm not sure if you're aware of that now or not
That children would be removed from a family because of political beliefs (if it's true). They are not an illegal organisation.
And I bet there would be a lot less ''fair enoughs' if it was the green party or something.
similar stories, kids taken away because i was: too black/too fat/too tall/too tory etc
Without fail, once the full foster report comes out the reasons are always complex and multiple, and far more reasonable than the one speculated factor that makes the press.
Not saying this is acceptable, just hold fire I reckon
that along the line it would emerge that there was some other good reason for it that was being ignored but yet to see one. Seems batshit to me tbh. From my experience I know social services have moved the goal posts so that it's harder for stuff to count as child abuse of late (down to overworkedness most likely, and yes contrary to public perception) so this all seems downright bizarre
One for the courts to decide re: fairness. Laughed a lot when I first saw this on the front of the telegraph. The timing is a bit suspect.
I am truly amazed that some people think this is a good thing. If you do please never call yourself left/liberal/whether term you like again because you're not.
stop being so reductionist
And lets not get bogged down in the usual symantec arguments that go on here. That was why I said ''whatever term you like'' to avoid that but hopefully still get my meaning across.
And on a personal level I do tend to think of being left and liberal as being similar or closely connected which is why I said it.
But left and liberal aren't closely connected when you think about the wider meaning of each term. "Liberalism" is such a malleable concept anyway... almost anyone can be a liberal. I see myself for example as holding liberal views but wouldn't see myself as left-wing.
but I dunno I think there is a distinction to be made
I'm not hugely sure if either (particularly liberal) are particularly useful terms in many contexts anyway but I guess that's a story for a different time
My point is I'm amazed anyone thinks the persecution of people who support a legal political party is ok.
I dont think it is persecution, if they were stopped from fostering any children it would be, but they believe people with non british origins shouldn't so placing these particular children of non british origin does pose a risk
*shouldnt be here
imagine growing up, or at least staying for a long time, in a place where you know the people caring for you don't think people like you should be here, best case scenario they are careful to not direct their comments to you but it could still be harmful for those children knowing what their parent figures opinions are
I dont think I have, they want to reduce immigration to a tiny fraction of what it is now, and apply their policies to EU migrants that are already here, I think it is safe to infer that they dont think people from outside the UK should be here, they might not be racists but they are still beliefs that might be distressing for those children in their care
There's a massive gulf between believing the country should contain no foreigners whatsoever and the view that we should exercise vastly more caution over who we allow in.
There's a vast grey area in the middle.
1. You seem to be assuming that all UKIP members will have a uniform set of beliefs. That isn't true of Labour or the Conservatives so I can't see why it'd be true of UKIP. People will have joined for different reasons and have different beliefs - the only thing we can safely infer about any individual member of UKIP is they want more independence from Europe. It doesn't necessarily mean they impose immigration (though it might be likely they do). And, even if they impose future immigration, it doesn't necessarily mean they think existing immigrants should leave, or indeed that their view of Britishness has a racial component to it.
2.I don't understand your assertion that their political beliefs might be distressing for children in their care. If they were massive racists that might be an issue but we've no evidence for that and it seems highly unlikely given they were fostering non-white children. Lots of parents have odd political beliefs in one way or another and children cope with it. I don't understand how someone being a member of political party you or I don't happen to like would necessarily be distressing for children - certainly not so much so that the need to uproot them yet again outweighs the benefits of a period of stability. I'm pretty sure being pulled out of a home at short notice with no clear explanation is far more psychologically damaging for a child than parents having bullshit views about immigration (which, I'd once again point out, we don't actually know that they had in the first place).
they may not have a uniform set of beliefs, but supporting a party that has a very clear hardline on immigration means that it is more likely that they share those beliefs and these kinds of situations are about minimising risk not certainties.
I am not saying they are racist, I dont think they would need to be racist for it to be a potentially bad environment, just having strong anti immigration beliefs for totally non racist reasons probably isnt the most supportive environment for them
Seems pretty clear to me how if you are an immigrant child growing up in a household where anti immigration views (are more likely to be) expressed might be harmful.
Secondly, again this is a bit like saying being a member of the Labour Party probably means you're a hardcore socialist. Plus the amount of research they've done (or should have done) on the families prior to fostering means that it should be possible to treat people as individuals rather than statistics here. As it stands, there's absolutely no evidence the parents themselves have anti-immigration beliefs.
but hardcore socialism is in no way as central to the modern labour party as opposition to the 'flood' of immigration, as UKIP put it, is to UKIP. UKIP has a very narrow focus and immigration is one of them. I think treating people as statistics can identify risks more reliably than treating them as individuals, treating people as individuals will only find out criminal convictions, and what they choose to reveal, if the statics show UKIP members are likely to strongly oppose immigration then that should be taken seriously.
Obviously I don't know the whole situation, if it was supposed to be short term and they were yanked back to a care home, on balance that is a bigger risk to their well being so probably should have just let them stay, but if they had another suitable couple lined up that is different
Especially as foster parents for older children can be rare. The whole thing smacks of thought police. Where do we stop? Does raising children to be a certain religion count? Say I'd you're teaching them homosexuality is bad? That would have more of an influence than a parents political beliefs. Should they be removed?
And do parents political views really get passed on to their kids? Do you vote the same way as your parents? I don't.
that this couple should only be allowed to foster racist children.
- David Cameron, 2006.
But yeah, as others have said further up the thread, I'd be really surprised if this is the reason, and the reason alone that was seen as justification for removing the children.
It's a story that the Telegraph have been fed by UKIP in the run up to the local bi-election, and the Tories and Tory press have jumped on it in an attempt to spike the Labour vote.
I'd give it a few days - it'll turn out to be something more serious and the decision more reasonable, although the story has probably already fulfilled its purpose, whether it turns out to be true or not.
But hey, it's nearly December, we'll start to get made up stories about local authorities banning Christmas soon.
but doesn't square very well with the Director of Children's Services attempting to justify the decision (and pointing out that there was no issue with the care the foster parents were given) rather than denying it or explaining it was a misunderstanding.