-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
I’m not getting involved in any serious discussions about politics.
@terry wrote:
. . . . 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 Pie is right, even if he is only joking. If the world is going to be changed it should be done by people people of superior intellect rather than inferior.
Joyce Thacker has shown herself to be the ultimate attention seeker, as shown by the degree to which we had all heard of her before, her prematurely-published kiss and tell autobiography, her myriad appearances on ‘reality’ shows, her hit single, celebrity affairs and her scantily-clad photographs on the internet.
If Michael Gove says the decision is indefensible, then he’s got to be right. As can be shown by Terry’s previous record for supporting Gove.
Labour’s view that ‘the more immigrants we have the better’ can be seen by the speed with which they repealed all immigration controls, compared to Tory government’s record for never letting anyone in at all.
The foster parents’ attitude to immigration shouldn’t matter. After all, the children wouldn’t be the first to be reared by parents who wished they were in another time zone.
And yes, the ultimate truth, the support which the majority of British Citizens have for UKIP can be seen in their resounding victory at the general election. I, for one, welcome our UKIP overlords.
On the other hand . . . . . .
Lord Terry asked the question a few pages ago:
What if the parents were members of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party?
What if the parents were members of the BNP Party?
@kent f OBE wrote:
Lord Terry asked the question a few pages ago:
What if the parents were members of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party?
What if the parents were members of the BNP Party?
I didn’t mention the BNP, but there again you do tend to mix fact with fiction, don’t you?
You even managed to call me a racist on these boards which just goes to show how disgracefully low you sink. People who point the finger and accuse someone of being a racist are as bad as racists themselves.
Oh and the “BNP Party”? Seriously Kent, what does the “P” in BNP stand for? huh?
You are totally clueless. And you disgust me…
@terry wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
Lord Terry asked the question a few pages ago:
What if the parents were members of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party?
What if the parents were members of the BNP Party?
I didn’t mention the BNP, but there again you do tend to mix fact with fiction, don’t you?
You even managed to call me a racist on these boards which just goes to show how disgracefully low you sink. People who point the finger and accuse someone of being a racist are as bad as racists themselves.
Oh and the “BNP Party”? Seriously Kent, what does the “P” in BNP stand for? huh?
You are totally clueless. And you disgust me…
Just because you say the poeple who point the finger are as bad doesn’t mean they are Lord Terry….that is your opinion, although I will let you have an opinion cos I’m nice like that :lol:
BNP of course I know the P stands for Party…so what ? I made a mistake….I was feeling tired…been a long day ….that’s a good excuse don’t you think?
The BNP was my question….knew you wouldn’t allow it to be just that…..You see if they were members of the BNP it throws a whole new light on it….not quite as strong as a light if they were Labour or Conservative does it?@terry wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
Lord Terry asked the question a few pages ago:
What if the parents were members of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party?
What if the parents were members of the BNP Party?
I didn’t mention the BNP, but there again you do tend to mix fact with fiction, don’t you?
You even managed to call me a racist on these boards which just goes to show how disgracefully low you sink. People who point the finger and accuse someone of being a racist are as bad as racists themselves.
Oh and the “BNP Party”? Seriously Kent, what does the “P” in BNP stand for? huh?
You are totally clueless. And you disgust me…
Terry Vision is right!
Adding your own comments to another without closing the quote is unforgiveable! Inconceivable! Redolent with fictionalising of the order of Jane Austen and her irredeemable ilk!!!
And if someone is racist then they should remain undisclosed. How disgraceful to describe someone as racist even when they are. The logic is unassailable! I’m going to go find a plumber, say “you’re a plumber” and then come home and fix my central heating!!!
And Kenty’s linguistic redundancy fully deseves the kind of revulsion Terry usually reserves for people who correct his grammar!!
Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry!
David Cameron described the UKIP as a coalition of racists and loonies back in 2005.
Terry stresses he is not a racist, and I believed him (though his reaction to my comments on Obama’s election were a little disturbing).
However, in response to Kenty, the BNP question is a good one, and refers to the discussion on whether BNP members should be prevented from holding a job. I think the general view was to hold BNP racism to be reprehensible, and yet to say that they shouldn’t be witch hunted out of jobs. If BNP members are loving foster-parents, and adopt black children, then I would have expected a rigorous questioning and examination of their views and approach before giving the go-ahead. Being members of the BNP, however bad the party, doesn’t automatically disqualify them though it should raise eyebrows at the very least.
The same goes for UKIP. I find their xenophobia indefensible, but that in itself doesn’t disqualify members from being foster-parents. It depends on the individuals.
As Panda argued, they could have taken the kids just for the money. Perhaps, though they seem to be very good at their job.
You can join the UKIP for any number of reasons. One is that you’re a racist, or alternatively an old-fashioned jingo – immigration is the key. Another is that you’r a loony. A third is that you simply hate the EU – this inludes a good number of people.
So it comes back to whether, once accepted as foster parents, this couple were questioned sufficiently by social workers. The pair say they would like the kids back, but accept that this is not possible, because the children have suffered enough from uncertainty in their lives already, and are very vulnerable.
Rotherham have completed their report and are discussing it with the govt. It can’t be totally revealed, but I look forward to the conclusions.
@sceptical guy wrote:
. . . . As Panda argued, they could have taken the kids just for the money. Perhaps, though they seem to be very good at their job. . . .
Just how good a job did they do? Full credit to all parents, foster, step, biological or whatever for surviving, let alone doing a good job.
That they kept the kids unharmed and well is a good thing, but anything further . . .
What I understand so far is that the parents let the kids teach them a song, (I refer to my earlier story about the BNP jazz fan) proves nothing really) and that the younger kids call the woman ‘mummy’ – I’ve been called ‘daddy’ by a little girl who looked even less like me than does Prince Harry. It only took about 5 minutes from entering the family home and the only interaction up til then was an exchange of names. Little kids do that.
I hope they did an excellent job, because if those kids get the memory of even a fortnight of excellent parenting, it might make a positive difference to their lives.
But does the evidence in the media so far show that this particular couple were ‘very good’?
@sceptical guy wrote:
The same goes for UKIP. I find their xenophobia indefensible, but that in itself doesn’t disqualify members from being foster-parents. It depends on the individuals.
You can join the UKIP for any number of reasons. One is that you’re a racist, or alternatively an old-fashioned jingo – immigration is the key. Another is that you’r a loony. A third is that you simply hate the EU – this inludes a good number of people.
Your logic and beliefs are laughable, but they always have been (regardless of the subject matter). And they’re quite scary too, because you’re promoting a lynch mob mentality of perceived good versus evil. It isn’t like that, but I do worry about your state of mind which seems to have the same amount of venom and hatred as the most extreme BNP supporter.
You’re entitled to your opinions of course (however ridiculous and insidious they are..and they ARE), but essentially you are wrong and deluded. And, by the looks of it, you always will be.
Scep….take that as a positive response…
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION :lol:
This whole thing reminds me of a scenario:
“I’m not racist, my neighbours aunty works with a black guy”
:lol:
@terry wrote:
@sceptical guy wrote:
The same goes for UKIP. I find their xenophobia indefensible, but that in itself doesn’t disqualify members from being foster-parents. It depends on the individuals.
You can join the UKIP for any number of reasons. One is that you’re a racist, or alternatively an old-fashioned jingo – immigration is the key. Another is that you’r a loony. A third is that you simply hate the EU – this inludes a good number of people.
Your logic and beliefs are laughable, but they always have been (regardless of the subject matter). And they’re quite scary too, because you’re promoting a lynch mob mentality of perceived good versus evil. It isn’t like that, but I do worry about your state of mind which seems to have the same amount of venom and hatred as the most extreme BNP supporter.
You’re entitled to your opinions of course (however ridiculous and insidious they are..and they ARE), but essentially you are wrong and deluded. And, by the looks of it, you always will be.
Terry Curtains is right!
The idea that UKIP members should not be disqualified from being foster parents even if scep himself disapproves of the party’s ethos is laughable!
And any fule no that there simply cannot be more than one reason for joining UKIP.
There can be only one!
Laughable! Scary! Venom! Hatred! Ridiculous! Insidious! Wrong! Deluded!
Hold on, that’s one dwarf too many . . . . .
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!