Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
We still don’t quite know if the complaint was restricted to support for UKIP, or whether it included more harmful allegations.
Yes we do. The only ‘crime’ committed by the foster parents was that they are members of UKIP. If you bothered to read the thread, the news and the links provided you might actually have a more informed opinion.
Terry is right, the thread, the news and the links provided tell 100% of the story and haven’t missed a single detail. Although I have read the thread and the links provided, I haven’t seen anything of this story in any news media that I have been watching, if I had I would have known that there was definitely absolutely nothing more to the story than is presented here.
@wordsworth60 wrote:
Sure the children’s welfare should come first, but current emphasis on budgets and media attention turn that sentiment into a slogan in some circumstances.
Terry is right, it is desirable to take random strings of words out of context when trying to find a meaningful quotation.
Trouble is, when Labour politicians make discriminatory comments it seems at odds with the party’s policies, so labour voters Per Se are not seen as having views which, if acted on, would harm the kids. But when UKIP leaders say things which are discriminatory it can seem in harmony with the party’s policy on immigration, especially when the policy doesn’t explain the non-discriminatory nature of it’s policies very well.
Why should it? Because if it really wants to change things rather than just protest, it will need to attract votes it doesn’t currently get.
As for reporting parents, unfortunately not all complaints are founded. Some are mischievous. But even when the complaints are ill-founded, the council will act on them, and I know couples who have had foster kids taken from them on the basis of lying, malicious, unfounded, anonymous allegations.
We still don’t quite know if the complaint was restricted to support for UKIP, or whether it included more harmful allegations.
But I’d like to thank Terry for his defence of UKIP. I naiively thought they were against the UK’s EU membership, but he has opened my eyes, and I dare say the eyes of others to a much wider aspect to the party and some of its stauncher supporters.
*Guffaws
@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?
They might not have become different people overnight, although religious and political conversions do occur. However they might not have revealed their political conversion and some ‘concerned neighbour’ might have reported them.
The selectors might have done everything required of them, but not discovered this particular aspect – lets face it, it’s hardly the most disastrous thing to happen to foster kids.
However once something is reported, the policy tends to be to play it safe by acting pre-emtively rather than begin a drawn out investigation. Thus anonymous report => action => consequences.
We might not like it, but ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ is not an attitude, but a reality of public service. If the Council had acted cautiously and in future years been sued by the kids because of harm done while being cared for by people who repeatedly told them they shouldn’t be in the country in the first place, their selection process would be criticised by some as being not thorough enough. If they take the kids away, then they are criticised by others as being ‘PC’ or acting hastily. Sure the children’s welfare should come first, but current emphasis on budgets and media attention turn that sentiment into a slogan in some circumstances.
@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.
Unfortunately certs, your assertions are contradicted by the queues of older women on flights to tourist destinations all over the world where they rekindle their acquaintances with their holiday or internet romances; the resulting marriages, some successful, some not and the women who date or marry ‘unsuitable’ men of all ages.
The attractiveness of some older men to some younger women is helped by the numptiness of some younger men, which can make us look like gods by comparison.
As for money, sometimes a woman will see something in a man which is hard to value financially, but which offers long term emotional security, which is as (maybe more) important.
Some people really aren’t motivated by money and are attracted to someone they can respect, whose company they can enjoy, and whose dreams and goals they can share.
Child protection is a nightmare. The fundamental problem is the one that caused the children to end up in care in the first place. Even if one disagrees with the council’s decision, they are not the bad guys, they are trying to make the best of a bad situation in a climate of decreasing resources, prurient media and increasing litigation.
The children are eastern European: I would have reservations about leaving children in an environment where they are likely to hear statements antagonistic towards their presence, whether these views are seen as racist or not.
However I realise that Terry’s views on eastern European immigration cannot in themselves be seen to represent UKIP. He has said he is not a member of any political party, so he might support UKIP as the least unacceptable option and defend them here as the underdog.
Already the picture widens and deepens.
According to the interview in Terry’s link, the children were in an emergency placement, so the children would have been removed from the couple sooner rather than later anyway.
Long term placement might well have involved splitting up the children. It is common for children to form very strong links with emergency foster parents and the removal to long term care is often very traumatic. The emergency foster carers know this is part of what they signed up for.The council had already been criticised by a judge for not giving children’s ethnic and cultural background enough regard. We have to believe the judge was being even more serious than Rusty Trawler when making the criticism. They are bound to act on a judge’s comments.
Even bearing these two points in mind, Mrs Thacker herself might agree with Terry, but her own views would be irrelevant and she would be speaking in an official capacity. Bound by legal and professional conditions. That might have explained the expression on her face which the UKIP chappy found so unappealing.
Social Services will tend to act on anonymous complaints even when the issues raised are thin, this is one of many cases that usually go unreported. The reasons for that are unfortunately, not Simple as.
Terry is right, anyone who makes a professional decision he doesn’t like or for reasons he doesn’t like should go. Simple as.
If he doesn’t like the decision it’s pointless waiting for the results of any inquiry which might reveal the bigger story he acknowledges might exist. Simple as.
I have said something he finds credible or at least possible. Simple as.
Support of a political movement that he wouldn’t personally join shouldn’t bar you from expressing your point of view, unless it’s the PC Brigade. Simple as.
Mrs T’s politics don’t matter, but Kenty’s do, as do (in no particular order) Jen’s, Panda’s and whoever else he decides is in the PC brigade. Simple as.
Someone’s looks are relevant to their decisions about child welfare. Simple as.
You don’t have to be a member of UKIP to want to defend it regardless of the public statements of its key figures. Simple as.
Just because you want to defend UKIP against any criticism or accusation, doesn’t mean you trust it enough to become a member. Simple as.
Telling Kenty to stfu is consistent with a belief in free speech. Simple as.
Stfu is easier to spell than it is to pronounce (at least in English) because of the way the vowel is placed in relation to the consonants. Simple as.
