-
Posts
-
@sceptical guy wrote:
First, if the fosterparents have the same attitude to Poles (or E. European immigrants) as Terry and Nigel Farage, why did they agree to adopt these children in the first place?
Money, perhaps?
A retired foster carer with 19 years experince stated in 2010:
“When we first started it was Voluntary work. All you got in way of payment was allowances for clothing, school equipment and any out of pocket expenses. We done it for to give appropriate love, affection and care to these children, to give them a stable home life as all children should have.
Over the past years fostering has been made into a ‘Job’ where you are self employed. The allowances vary each year but as a rough guide you will get around
£100 per child (this varies with age) per week for care & clothing
£140 per child placement per week
Required School expenses providing it is for Educational purposes (Paid as required)
40 pence per mile Travel Expenses (Paid Monthly)So if you have 2 children placed with you payments will be
£100 x 2 = £200
£140 x 2 = £280
Plus expenses could add up to around £500 per week.
3 placements adds up to over £700 per week”
Maybe everyone should adopt or foster one of these :) :) :)
@angelbabe wrote:
Maybe everyone should adopt or foster one of these :) :) :)
I have, along with a tiger and snow leopard.
I’ve adopted them but they don’t live with me. :D
I wonder is the by-election in Rotherham this week has anything to do with the slur against UKIP?
Politicians from all political parties have been critical of Joyce Thacker’s reasons for removing the children from their foster parents. And that is good to hear, because it was a decision based purely on discrimination. It had nothing to do with the welfare of the children and that is why – in my opinion – she isn’t the kind of person who should be in a position of responsibility.
Nigel Farage has said he won’t broker any kind of deal with the Tories at elections as long as David Cameron remains the leader of the Conservatives.
@panda12 wrote:
@angelbabe wrote:
Maybe everyone should adopt or foster one of these :) :) :)
I have, along with a tiger and snow leopard.
I’ve adopted them but they don’t live with me. :D
i have adopted a panda and a tiger also :)
I wonder is the by-election in Rotherham this week has anything to do with the slur against UKIP?
Politicians from all political parties have been critical of Joyce Thacker’s reasons for removing the children from their foster parents. And that is good to hear, because it was a decision based purely on discrimination. It had nothing to do with the welfare of the children and that is why – in my opinion – she isn’t the kind of person who should be in a position of responsibility.
Nigel Farage has said he won’t broker any kind of deal with the Tories at elections as long as David Cameron remains the leader of the Conservatives.
@terry wrote:
I wonder is the by-election in Rotherham this week has anything to do with the slur against UKIP?
Politicians from all political parties have been critical of Joyce Thacker’s reasons for removing the children from their foster parents. And that is good to hear, because it was a decision based purely on discrimination. It had nothing to do with the welfare of the children and that is why – in my opinion – she isn’t the kind of person who should be in a position of responsibility.
Nigel Farage has said he won’t broker any kind of deal with the Tories at elections as long as David Cameron remains the leader of the Conservatives.
Well i would say that It’s discriminating in as much the same way one would hope they would discriminate against potential foster parents with a proven record of child-abuse. Those responsible believed that they were acting in the best interest of the children, and it’s easy to see why they had a concern when we consider UKIPs views on immigration and the nationality of the children. Once again, I state that’s not to say that their conclusion and actions have been merited or proven, but it’s a legitimate concern.
You’re right about members from all political parties being very quick to condemn Joyce Thacker prior to any inquiry or report, and they have used this to make expedient political points in the run up to the by-election It partly illustrates how contentious the issue is and how we need to ‘read’ our politicians and understand that they are often prone to exploit events primarily for their own benefit and not necessarily ours. Politicians should be calling for a bit of calm and encouraging us to wait until the complexities are available to be analysed. A cynical viewpoint, I know, but it’s not for nothing that more and more people are wary of politicians and their motives.
I’m cynical about Nicholas Farage too. On the radio in the car today I could have crashed with laughter in agreement when Gavin Schapps called him an opportunist masquerading as a statesman. Let’s see how he feels about his statement if there is a hung parliament in 2015 and the Tory party comes knocking on his door.
It seems “Mr Cameron has previously said that Ukip members are mostly “closet racists” . . . . . “, albeit a good few years ago. Now I’m not impressed by UKIP’s public representatives that I have seen, but that doesn’t mean that racism typifies the party.
By instinct, Cameron’s statement about UKIP means that despite Panda’s conviction, it will be almost impossible to convince me that UKIP is typically racist.
Personally I only know of one person who speaks/writes of being a UKIP supporter, and at times I suspect he/she’s actually a supporter one of the other political parties, seeking to bring UKIP into disrepute.
As far as this case is concerned, I still think the real picture is a bigger one, although it’s far more convenient for the media-led to have individuals to demonise. I wonder what led to them being the subject of emergency fostering in the first place and whether that had anything to do with it.
@rusty trawler wrote:
it’s easy to see why they had a concern when we consider UKIPs views on immigration and the nationality of the children.
Hmm..who exactly is “we”? Do you speak for yourself or do you see yourself as a spokesperson for a ground-breaking new group of “loonie lefties” who will change the world with their superior brand of intellect? I hate it when people are looking to grab a bit of attention for themselves, because they invariably get it wrong just as Joyce Thacker (an ultimate attention-seeker) has – and who on earth would defend her when her views have been described as “indefensible”?
Just a point of interest: political commentators have said that Labour’s “views on immigration” (the more immigrants we have, the better) cost them the last election (a view supported by Labour MP Chris Bryant).
So whose immigration policy is the best? and why should it matter in this particular case? Were the children at risk of being harmed because they are Polish? Clearly not.
UKIP’s “views on immigration” are actually reflected by the majority of British citizens. Nobody “hates” the east Europeans – they just question the need for them to be allowed to continue to live, work and claim benefits over here. That isn’t a racist policy – it’s a sound, economic one that is opposed by people (like Tony Blair, today) who know that being in the EU costs us a fortune, but couldn’t care less.
@terry wrote:
@rusty trawler wrote:
it’s easy to see why they had a concern when we consider UKIPs views on immigration and the nationality of the children.
Hmm..who exactly is “we”? Do you speak for yourself or do you see yourself as a spokesperson for a ground-breaking new group of “loonie lefties” who will change the world with their superior brand of intellect? I hate it when people are looking to grab a bit of attention for themselves, because they invariably get it wrong just as Joyce Thacker (an ultimate attention-seeker) has – and who on earth would defend her when her views have been described as “indefensible”?
Just a point of interest: political commentators have said that Labour’s “views on immigration” (the more immigrants we have, the better) cost them the last election (a view supported by Labour MP Chris Bryant).
So whose immigration policy is the best? and why should it matter in this particular case? Were the children at risk of being harmed because they are Polish? Clearly not.
UKIP’s “views on immigration” are actually reflected by the majority of British citizens. Nobody “hates” the east Europeans – they just question the need for them to be allowed to continue to live, work and claim benefits over here. That isn’t a racist policy – it’s a sound, economic one that is opposed by people (like Tony Blair, today) who know that being in the EU costs us a fortune, but couldn’t care less.
Hi Terrry.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said ‘we’. Apologies if this has been the cause of your ire. I speak for myself primarily, Let me rephrase that for the sake of clarification: Given UKIP’s immigration policies it understandable that the council had a concern. I’m fairly confident that you’ll question that statement, but I’ll attempt to address that in due course. I assume that you speak for yourself? I never claimed to be an intellect but often express an opinion – which I’m just as likely to get it wrong as you are.
I’m a bit miffed at your question on whose immigration policy is best because it seems to show that your much more interested in implying that i see myself as an intellectual loony lefty than taking note of what I said. Without going back and looking at my other posts in this thread, I think I’ve been careful not to express my personal opinions about UKIP’s immigration policies. I stated that such policies would be understandably of concern to those with a duty of care to the children. I even went further by stating this does not necessarily make the Rotherham Councils actions the right ones and I have said that the foster parents’ aims were probably very laudable. I’m not trying to score goals about UKIP’s policies. firstly, I don’t think it’s the main thrust of the debate to identify who has the right immigration policy and secondly, I don’t think my ‘loony left’ opinion will hold much influence. Let me know if you want to specifically debate UKIP’s immigration policy, and I might think about starting a new thread.
You state that UKIP’s immigration policies are reflected by the majority of British citizens. I don’t know if that is true and, given your inclination to skip over the detail and react without reference to what has actually been said (e.g. I never said anything about anyone ‘hating’ east Europeans), I’m not sure I’m willing to take your word on that. I’ll endeavour to do a bit of research and get back to you. The Labour party is a broad church and consists of members with a variety of views on immigration. Chris Bryant probably did say that, others will disagree.
UKIP’s views on immigration are a concern because the children are of east European origin. If the foster parents have views that could prevent them from providing optimal care to the children it is a legitimate concern. If UKIP have policies that immigration policies that directly impact on Polish people then clearly it is a concern. Once again I will state this may not be the case. Once again I will state that Rotherham council may not have taken the necessary steps. But I still applaud their concern.
Political commentators commentate by definition. Some even have views on immigration that are diametrically opposed to my own (although I have yet to express my views on that particular subject).
I’m not attention grabbing. As i said before, I like a healthy debate and I’m happy to consider opinions that are not necessarily aligned with mine without making assumptions about the person expressing them.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!