White Supremacists – then why mention them?

Griffon Vulture, Gorge du Tarn, France

Is this one of MsChin’s vultures heading for Rotherham?

Is Beautiful Burnout accusing the Rotherham couple of being White Supremacists? If not why mention it?

 For example, you wouldn’t place an ethnically Indian-sub-continent child with a white supremacist family; UKIP are renowned for their anti-European integration stance, their disparagement of multicultural integration as a goal, and want to put a halt to immigration. An already-vulnerable child from a non-British family, brought up (albeit temporarily) in a household where these views might be expressed, could potentially be psychologically/emotionally damaged by it. Even if it is only a remote risk, it is a risk that the services placing the child in care will not wish to take.

I would hope that White Supremacists wouldn’t be considered as foster parents or is MrsB suggesting that it’s only non-white children who require her consideration and protection?

But as even a cursory glance at Google News would have revealed this from the the foster mother concerned:

“I’ve got mixed race in my family. I said, ‘I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party’.”

“These kids have been loved. These kids have been treated no differently to our own children. We wouldn’t have taken these children on if we had been racist.”

And MsChin, also speaking from ignorance:

“we don’t know the circumstances in which these kids were taken into care, nor what their individual needs are.”

You mean apart from what the foster parents and the social worker have said?

——————————————————————————

Update 1

From certainty:

MrsB 12.55pm

But from my understanding, given that the well-being of the child is paramount, this is one of the areas where there can be a certain amount of discrimination on the basis of beliefs – political or religious – and that discrimination would be lawful.

To maybe I’m not quite so sure after learning that discrimination on the grounds of political belief might be illegal:

MrsB 8.06pm

But in Family law – and particularly Public Family Law cases – the welfare of the child is “top trumps”, which may well weigh in the balance in favour of the interference/discrimination.

But yes, it would be good to see a Discrimination Law big-hitter writing a piece on this.

To certainty that she knows the couple’s views on immigration:

MrsB 8.17pm

Imagine they overhear their foster parents discussing their views on “immigrants” knowing that they are in that category. How would they be affected by that, having possibly been rejected by their birth-parents?

At least AT42 came up with some good advice:

I’m a bit concerned about this thing in Rotherham, in principle what party you support shouldn’t influence your opportunity to foster. Quite a few people would like to put people of our political  ilk on a similar ‘banned list’.

It was short term emergency fostering, the couple had fostered for years with no apparent problems. The spokesperson kept going on about cultural and ethnic needs and yes they are important when long term fostering/adoption is concerned.

What concerns me here is those kids who will languish in care because a correct cultural match (eastern European in this case) cannot be found. This does seem to happen a lot the policy is to often followed too literally.

UKIP is an odious single issue party and states its against multiculturalism. But that word means many things to many people. It should mean respect for people’s differing cultures and that includes   the native British culture too surely? Its also important that people, whatever their cultural background, understand the culture of the country they live in.

People join all political parties for all sorts of reasons, immigration, especially in the current situation may well cause concern to many right thinking people. Remember Gordon Brown’s gaffe during the election? Over the years ‘political correctness’ has created the impression that the only cultures worthy of protection in this country are the non British ones.

Multiculturalism means respect for all cultures, too often its not interpreted this way.

I expect Gordon Brown would call me ‘bigoted’ for writing this post. What we need in fostering and adoption is a policy that does the very best we can for all kids. If parents of the correct cultural match cannot be found other ways of keeping the child in contact with their culture  could be sought, most immigrant groups have associations who should be happy to help,  for example. And please how culturally appropriate is an average care home going to be? For example – who hugs a ‘cared for’ child?

Update 2

BeautifulBurnout writing in support of Rotherham’s Children and Young People’s Services who removed the children from their foster parents:

The “busybody” with “impaired judgment” has a legal responsiblity for the the welfare of the children in their care. I reiterate: foster parents are employees of the local council. They have no vested interest in the children save that they are paid per child per week by Social Services to look after them.

Wrong, HMRC says on the fee paid to foster parents, most of which is for the care of the child / children and only a small amount as a “reward” for fostering:

If you receive this income we normally treat you as being self-employed.

and from Foster Care Associates 

“FCA is the UK’s largest Independent Fostering Agency with over 80 offices nationwide, providing locally based support services to our foster carers.”

Our carers work on a ‘self employed’ basis. Foster carers receive very favourable tax treatment on income derived solely from fostering.

The only time MrsB told us all about her fostering experience was here on The Untrusted:

Re my new lodger – well, it keeps my lad happy to have someone here so it’s win-win really. I would be quite happy for him to stay longer if necessary, but as I am not an official foster carer they prolly wouldn’t let me do that really.

And the following day:

Morning o hungover ones. I have remarkably little hangover considering I guzzled a quarter of a bottle of Sailor Jerry’s last night. Jeez.

Was this before she discovered that the child who she’d taken into her care had been picked up late at night by the British Transport Police at London’s Waterloo Station, after running off with her son?  But back to the present day:

It took long time poster Wheatfromchaff to spell it out to MrsB:

If you had told me, 30 years ago that it would become possible for Britain to become the sort of country where children could be removed from people solely on the basis of their party political allegiance – and as the result of an anonymous grass by some revolting net-curtain-twitcher who isn’t fit to live in a civilised neighbourhood – I genuinely would have considered you to be taking the p*ss.

—————————————————————————————-

Update 3

Is this more of BeautifulBurnout’s censorship?

MrsB who posted the following defence of Joyce Thacker:

I don’t believe Joyce Thacker, or anyone else at Rotherham council, has said that this couple were “unsuitable carers” per se because of their membership of UKIP; I believe they said they were unsuitable carers for these particular children given the potential clash in their political views and the cultural needs of the children.

They might decide that a fundamentalist Christian family is not a good placement for an ethnically-Muslim child, or a Muslim family for a Christian child, but that does not mean that either the Christian or the Muslim family are not suitable foster carers, does it? It is about matching the needs of the child with the environment they are placed.

Still, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good soundbite, eh?

So why has Rotherham Council now stated that membership of UKIP is not a bar to fostering children?

Plumtart responded with the following at 12:09PM and was promptly deleted:

Here’s some facts:

In September and October 2010, a gang of eight Pakistani Muslims in Rotherham were prosecuted for rape and other sexual crimes against four white British girls. Three of the four children were 13 years of age. At least one was 12 when the rapes started. Five of the accused gang were convicted and three acquitted at Sheffield Crown Court. 
JOYCE THACKER, the strategic director of the children and young people’s services directorate at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, said it was “interesting” to note that most [sic] of the men involved were Asian, but that it was primarily an issue of the abuse of children by older men.

Determined not to take an interest in the “cultural” rape of children in Rotherham, Joyce Thacker prefers to concentrate on the crime of supporting UKIP.

And later here’s MrsB accusing others of knee jerk reactions:

The knee-jerkism – even from otherwise intelligent people – surrounding this issue is astounding.

If this was knee-jerkism on 27 November, what was this from MrsB on the 24th?

But from my understanding, given that the well-being of the child is paramount, this is one of the areas where there can be a certain amount of discrimination on the basis of beliefs – political or religious – and that discrimination would be lawful.

For example, you wouldn’t place an ethnically Indian-sub-continent child with a white supremacist family; UKIP are renowned for their anti-European integration stance, their disparagement of multicultural integration as a goal, and want to put a halt to immigration. An already-vulnerable child from a non-British family, brought up (albeit temporarily) in a household where these views might be expressed, could potentially be psychologically/emotionally damaged by it. Even if it is only a remote risk, it is a risk that the services placing the child in care will not wish to take.

And still she claims the couple are employees of the council:

They are people who are employed by the council, and paid on a per-child-per-week basis…..

———————————————————————

Update 4

Posted on CiF:

Basically, Rotherham children’s services rushed out and removed three kids from a foster family because they thought they were BNP members. They were too stupid to understand that in fact they are members of UKIP. By the time they worked that out it was too late. Now they need a few weeks’ breathing space to make up a few semi-plausible lies to cover up for their stupidity.

An interesting contribution and one which I’ve not seen put forward before but which sounds far more credible that any other explanation we’ve heard so far.

 ———————————————————-

Update 5

BeautifulBurnout – the one who doesn’t “play the man” snipes:

(I take it you are out of work as you spend most of your day posting on here – either that or your employer is really not getting very good value for money).

The poster concerned has 18 pages of posts since 21 May 2012, whereas the self-employed barrister, home educator, star of the Untrusted and winner of the  Golden Neo-Con Medal, David Cameron Bootstrapper of the Year Award managed that number since 12 October.

And the poster concerned responded in no uncertain fashion here

————————————————————

Update 6

MrsB bows out of the thread after this response from her “out of work” opponent:

What ‘application’ am I going to fill in? An application to teach you to sharpen pencils? Because I’m certainly not going to waste my time trying to teach you the twelve times table.

————————————————–

Update 7

The foster mother told the BBC on Tuesday:

“We have no strong opinions on immigration; we don’t know very much about politics. We agree with UKIP in getting out of the European Union. That was our initial reason for joining UKIP.”

The foster mother said they had become attached to the children.

“You do love them; you do get to know them and you do get upset when they leave. But because it’s a profession, you can’t allow yourself to get too attached, but we did get attached. We gave them the best care possible and we treated them no different than our own children.”

 ————————————————

Update 8

And a wonderful riposte from davidwferguson to MrsB’s ignorance of international trade and economics:

I could go on to try to explain to you the difference between goods and services, and the fact that services are tariff free, or about the WTO, and the complex regulations that forbid members from engaging in the arbitrary imposition of tariffs. I might even try to explain that you can’t actually transform a car factory into an investment bank overnight with the wave of a magic wand…

But I’ve a feeling I might as well try to explain the Duckworth-Lewis method for calculating the run-rate required to win a rain affected cricket match to a cockroach.

 ————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: