[rusty trawler]

@terry wrote:

I agree with the silly you bit.

No surprises there then.

Don’t know if you know this, Terry, but intelligence is a social construct and it requires the ability to take on board ideas and concepts that you might not necessarily agree with and to put them under some sort of rational analysis. I’m not sure how always thinking that you’re right or criticising the person rather than the thrust of their argument fits with any decent definition of intelligent discussion.

But I guess I’m the one who’s silly.

Might be a good idea if we both elect to ignore our mutual comments. I don’t think you’re capable of taking on board the opinions of anyone else unless they align with yours and I don’t care to engage with someone who thinks they have all the answers.

[rusty trawler]

@terry wrote:

@rusty trawler wrote:

I don’t think UKIP have been blameless though, they gain greatly by polarizing the EU issue and most of us have more complex views about it.

Polarizing the EU issue is what all political parties should be doing for goodness sake. :roll:
It’s no good sitting on the fence when you’re a politician and we desperately need somebody (anybody but Cameron..) to lead this country rather than get led by unelected, corrupt EU bureaucrats. Let’s get one thing straight: The EU (or Hitler’s utopian vision) has been a disaster. What good has it ever done to any member nation?

Silly me for listening to people who have a greater understanding of the complex implications of the EU when they declare that it is a complex issue. Silly me for not thinking that people like Mrs Teapot who have valid doubts are nothing more than fence sitters. Silly me for thinking the occasional typo or misplaced apostrophe doesn’t make someone a complete idiot. Silly me for having an opinion that might be contrary to yours. Silly me for thinking that there might be a chance that I was going to be one of the people on your Christmas card list.

[rusty trawler]

@mrs_teapot wrote:

Ive just listened to an interview with the foster parents and I stand by my original thoughts on this case. The kids should have stayed put there was no need whatsoever in my view for them to be removed.

It seems the mere mention of the name UKIP brings out the very worst in people.. I have never voted UKIP but because I have started to doubt if we should be in the EU I have started looking at their policies. I’ll be honest I haven’t seen anything in them I think is racist. I’m not persuaded to vote for them yet, Im still waiting for an informed debate on the EU…so who knows?

I dont think the kids should be returned to the carers now…. I fear they would be stigmatized any damage has been done by moving them….. I just hope their best interests are what matters now and not political point scoring.

Valid points as usual, Mrs T.

I don’t share UKIP’s views on Europe or many other things to be honest, but I don’t think they are a racist party per se. I think even Pro EU supporters have issues about the EU and it has become a contentious issue whichever side of the fence you sit on.

I don’t know if moving the children was in their best interest because, like everyone else, I don’t know the details and I most definitely don’t know anything about the foster parents. I still stand by my original conviction that it was an understandable concern, as is any belief that may be considered to potentially have a negative impact on the kids. As such I would question placing Jewish children with a Muslim family without necessarily implying any value judgement of the prospective foster parents.

I fear that the welfare of the children is in danger of being completely lost in this issue, as those that should know better have chosen to take the opportunity to exploit it for their political benefit. It seems very few of those who have stepped on the soapbox have put the pending by election to one side and considered the complexity of this unique scenario.

I don’t think UKIP have been blameless though, they gain greatly by polarizing the EU issue and most of us have more complex views about it, rather like your doubts.

[rusty trawler]

a Christmas pressie hint.

image ru

[rusty trawler]

@mrs_teapot wrote:

@rusty trawler wrote:

@lucy53leeds wrote:

love them when there crispy

very moooooooooooorish

one cafe of the to try list

Hi Lucy

Love, love and gonna look it up on the net.

incidentally, if you want good baklava in Leeds, check out Moorish.co.uk

thanks

Were you at Leeds Uni Rusty?…….. think you may have been if you know Hyde Park Restaurants and takeaways :D

I’m guilty of of being a Leeds Met grad, wasn’t bright enough enough for the Leeds Uni. However, I made up for it with my continued education down south. But more importantly, I’m a West Yorkshire boy born and bred and returned a few years ago.

[rusty trawler]

@lucy53leeds wrote:

love them when there crispy

very moooooooooooorish

one cafe of the to try list

Hi Lucy

Love, love and gonna look it up on the net.

incidentally, if you want good baklava in Leeds, check out Moorish.co.uk

thanks

[rusty trawler]

A jolly good whisky

image

http://mackmyra.se/

[rusty trawler]

@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.

[rusty trawler]

@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.

[rusty trawler]

@irish_lucy wrote:

For cannibals

And Revenge of the fruit

nice one, lucy

[Author]

Posts