Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@mrs_teapot wrote:
I dont understand this damned if you do damned if you dont attitude.
These foster carers haven’t suddenly become different people overnight… the people they are today are the people they were yesterday or the day before when the children were placed with them.
So it takes an anonymous phone call for them to suddenly be unsuitable? Im sorry I dont get it… truly if today they are not suitable but yesterday they were… who is selecting child placements? …. and shouldn’t we be focusing on their ineptitude?…OK these carers are members of a political party… but that’s because of their beliefs and values…. surely that’s what is focused on in the selection process when recruiting people to do the job?
You’re right, Mrs Teapot. The foster parents haven’t suddenly transmogrified into terrible child-eating ogres overnight, and I know it’s a difficult gig looking after other people’s kids, both from legal and social aspects, but if their is the possibility that their beliefs have may have a direct impact on the wellbeing of the children then we really should take this into consideration – even belatedly.
In an ideal world we would always be able to name and identify those who accuse us, but sometimes there are good reasons why they remain anonymous. And even when this is not the case, surely recent circumstances such as the Saville farrago have taught us that we ignore accusations and indications at our peril, regardless of however slight they may be.
As someone else has pointed out, I don’t believe that the selection process can be completely infallible, and I think these circumstances are not typical. Despite how well-meaning the caregivers are, I can’t ignore the possibility that their beliefs regarding non-indigenous cultures could have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of the children. This may not be true, and they can be supporters of UKIP without supporting the policies which are now being questioned, but it is right for those with a duty of care to the children to be mindful of this. Furthermore, I know it is enshrined in some UN Nations doctrine of social rights that we have an inalienable right to cultural freedom, which shouldn’t be shackled or curbed.
Had the foster parents indoctrinated the children into believing things that made them confused about their ethnicity and/or culture or they made You’re right, Mrs Teapot. The foster parents haven’t suddenly transmogrified into terrible child-eating ogres overnight, and I know it’s a difficult gig looking after other people’s kids both from legal and social aspects, but if their beliefs can have a direct impact on the wellbeing of the children then we really should take this into consideration – even belatedly.
In ideal world we would always be able to name and identify those who accuse us, but sometimes there are good reasons why they remain anonymous. And even when this is not the case, surely recent circumstances such as the Saville farrago have taught valuable lessons about the risk of ignoring indications or accusations however slight they may be.
As someone has pointed out, I don’t believe that the selection process can be completely infallible, and I think these circumstances are not typical. Despite how well-meaning the caregivers are, I can’t ignore the possibility that their beliefs regarding non-indigenous cultures could have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of the children. This may not be true, and they can be supporters of UKIP without supporting the policies which are now being questioned, but it is right for those with a duty of care to the children to be mindful of this. Furthermore, I know it is enshrined some UN Nations doctrine of social rights that we have an inalienable right to cultural freedom, which shouldn’t be shackled or curbed.
None of this is to say that the foster parents are ‘bad’ people or that Rotherham’s council’s reaction was not severe.
I always considered him to be the consummate larger than life professional, who knew his monetary value and always turned it on for the cameras, except when they interrupted his game of golf without invitation. For good or for bad, we don’t make many like him anymore.
@simplysu wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
(Taken from the ladies room thread.)
How dare you steal from our thread, you incorrigible rogue?
P.S. A little too much knowledge being displayed by some of the gents in here about ladies garments and footwear. It’s disturbing.
Well, all I can say is woe betide the man who doesn’t know about such things. The wise modern man is constantly taking note of his partner’s appearance in order to offer those comforting words of support when solicited. But it’s not adequate to simply say ‘no honey, your bum doesn’t look big in that dress’ these days without removing your head from the footy highlights on the telly. The more successful of our brethren will proffer informed opinions about colour matching and such. (And thanks to Gok and those two posh women that tend to go on a bit and always seem to fiddle with their victim’s boobs before they persuade her to discard the dowdy dress and try something completely different, we really have no excuse to be ill-informed now.)
But even that’s not enough. Now we have to be preened within an inch of our lives. For example, in allegiance with my female colleagues with a penchant for the Brazilian, I have taken to manscaping my privates. On daring occasions I have elected for extreme Gobi Desert option, arid and completely devoid of all life. Other options have also been applied. There’s the Wembley, neat, well-kept and despite claiming to be always ready for a good game, rarely able to endure the full 90 minutes; The Mohican a la David Beckham and the traditional short back and sides.
But these days I sport the dreadlocked option and have appropriately named it the Knob Marley
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@rusty trawler wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Who’s that knocking? opens the door…… flutters eyelashes and smiles sweetly at rusty trawler….. accepts the Louboutin shoes and the giant Toblerone graciously …… avoids eye contact with the other girls and beats a hasty retreat.. :D :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
Lol. Thank you, Mrs Teapot for so graciously accepting my gifts. I would have been rather shamefaced returning back to the blokes’ den of inequity with the shoes. They would have scoffed the choccies though.
(Taken from the ladies room thread.)
RT Looks like you should have checked out Mrs T with just the Toblerone as one or two of the fellows can’t stretch to Louboutins after last week’s poker night losses.
You’re welcome back in the club at any time. A fetching pair of louboutins would only heighten your re-integration, especially on Tuesday nights.
Mathers on reception will supply with a re-sealable plastic bag to retain the ‘new shoe’ aroma.
Please ask Sgt Pepper to wear his dress gloves when handling them as his callouses scratched the patent on the last pair of pumps.
Lol Grand Master Words,
As usual i’m lost for words.
I’m not entirely sure that I completely agree with the tenor of this thread, either.
I always think it’s hard to be conclusive about the rules of the heart.
But what a post! I can see why more than the occasional lady is impressed with your epistolary skills.
Love the name btw. Anyone who likes bossa nova can’t be all bad.
@terry wrote:
@rusty trawler wrote:
I think the foster parents are blameless (they believe what they believe just like the rest of us) even if i disagree with their politics.
I don’t think this is a debate about your political beliefs and which party you agree or disagree with. The same could be said about Thacker who clearly doesn’t like UKIP and has decided to make an issue of it. She has to go. Simple as.
Sorry, Terry, I have a bad habit of not making myself clear. I was stating that I don’t necessarily share their political beliefs, and that their political beliefs would make me question their suitability as foster parents for these particular children. I was also highlighting the point that I don’t necessarily think they are bad people, just that our beliefs will often preclude us from doing things. I would be very sceptical about accepting a lift from an unrecoverd alcoholic but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are drunk.
@terry wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Before a couple can become foster parents they have to go through a rigorous selection process… they obviously did that,,, and were accepted.
They have fostered many kids over the years one of whom they had for 4 years…. when Social Services received an anonymous call about the couples political persuasions…why didn’t they judge purely on the development and happiness of the children? they do regular reports dont they?….
The couples records state them as exemplary foster parents and that the children were doing well ….. it was stated the baby was thriving and the other two were happy…. politics should have been secondary here….. the only thing that mattered was the well being of the kids…. the result is the siblings are now split up…. the very worst and most traumatic result for them….. such a shame
Excellent post Mrs T. =D>
I agree with a lot of what you have stated, Mrs T. I think the foster parents are blameless (they believe what they believe just like the rest of us) even if i disagree with their politics. And they obviously have a heightened sense of civic duty. But i can’t blame the council for being sensitive to the issue once they became aware of it. Should they been more diligent and employed a more rigorous selection process before placing the children? Perhaps. Have the foster parents been exemplary? I have no evidence to the contrary.
But I can’t detach myself from considering the cultural and ethnic needs of the children anymore than I could to their health or educational needs. We’re greater than the sum of our parts, but all our parts contribute to our happiness and wellbeing. We can’t employ an exact science here, and like Jen-Jen said, once the council became aware, they were in an unenviable precarious position.
I can’t blame the council for acting on anonymous tips, though.
@jen_jen wrote:
I personally think that in this case it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Once they knew about the foster parents’ political affiliations they were on a hiding to nothing.
Once again, Jen-Jen, I think you’re right. you’re batting a century at the moment.
Indeed, Terry.
I don’t think i have the prerequisite skills and expertise to work in the social services. I do think many of these professionals are undervalued and we don’t necessarily acknowledge how difficult a job it is and that sometimes they will inevitably make mistakes in the pursuit of the the right thing.
I’m not sure that you’re qualified to work in the social services either, because you don’t seem to understand that these things are rarely polarized and finding the right solution will usually be difficult to identify because of the very nature of the work.
Anyway, I hope you don’t think i’m personalizing this or claiming to have the answers. I merely enjoy the debate and hopefully learn something in the process.
@terry wrote:
@rusty trawler wrote:
The council had a duty of care to the children.
Exactly. And they’ve failed, which is why an investigation is being launched.
To ensure that children get the proper ‘duty of care’ maybe Joyce Thacker should stand down from her position or be forcibly removed.
I’m not sure I get your issue, terry.
Are you saying it is wrong to try to attempt put children in supportive environments? Personally, in way of an illustration, I would want considerable assurances if a council placed a Christian child in a fundamentally Muslim or Jewish environment. I’d also like to think I would brave the risk of being branded a racist or being called a politically correct loony in order to support the greater needs of the child. Therefore, I commend the council for being aware of the potential pitfalls.
I’m not going to waiver in my opinion simply because there is an investigation pending. Like I said, their conclusion my have been mistaken, their concerns are laudable.
