The Stench of Hypocrisy in Rotherham

Griffon Vulture, Gorge du Tarn, France

Griffon Vulture, Gorge du Tarn, France

One of Ms Chins’s Vultures heading for Rotherham?

Update 7

BeautifulBurnout, 04 December 2012 on You Tell Us:

@Isteddfodd –

And yet, bizarrely enough, I was a “private”(ie unpaid), LA-approved and supervised foster carer to one of my son’s classmates for over 6 months when his mother was taken ill a few years ago.

Is the the same one who was picked up by the British Transport Police in the early hours of the morning, 30 miles from home? (see Update 2)

Update 6

An ironic twist from the Daily Mail

Through friends, the parents of the Rotherham children say the irony is that despite the council’s fears of the UKIP foster couple being racist, it is the council which has picked on them because they are Roma, and social workers disapprove of their non-British ‘lifestyle’.

The Slovak father told friends: ‘It is the social services who have been racist against my family.’ 
However, social services are standing by their original decision to remove the Slovak couple’s first two children, made after one of their sons was found wandering the streets of Rotherham at two in the morning shortly after they came to Britain. The council then took their newly born grandchild into care this summer. 
The remaining four children were seized in September when social workers deemed the family’s small terrace house was ‘overcrowded’ and infested with mice, said the father. 
Social workers claim there are other concerns about the family, including suspicions that the father had physically abused some of the children. He, and their mother, have denied this

Update 5

Nine times we have been informed by MrsBootstraps, CiF’s favourite barrister that Rotherham Council employs or effectively employs its foster parents. But a search of the council’s website fails to reveal any evidence for this claim.

Rotherham Council’s website does have lots of information that related directly to this case such as:

The aim of Rotherham’s Fostering Service is to provide children looked after in foster care with foster placements which reflect the children’s race, culture, religious & language needs.

We aim to ensure:-

All foster care applicants are offered a service which is based on the principles of equal opportunities & respect for individuals, regardless of language, race, culture, religion, sexuality or disability.

Currently we offer 6 places each year for carers who would like to study towards and achieve a nationally-recognised award.

But nowhere can I find any reference to it employing or effectively employing its foster parents.

Update 4

On the professionalism of social workers

As to “placing an awful amount of trust in social workers” – who else would you place trust in, in the circumstances? They have to apply the the Court to take a child into care in the first place. They have to show that they have a damn good reason for doing so, they are trained professionals who specialise in their field and they have to account for what they are doing every step of the way.

But surely these same professionals would have carried out such basic checks on the suitability of the foster parents before entrusting the children to their care?

Reading Borough Green Party member, Melanie Eastwood

A FOSTER mum turned politician has criticised a high-profiled decision to take three ethnic minority children away from a couple because they are members of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

Reading borough councillor, Melanie Eastwood, said social workers in Rotherham should have been aware of the foster parents’ political affiliations from the start because of the rigorous assessment process.

Rotherham Borough Council had reportedly acted on an anonymous tip-off that the parents were supporters of the party, which campaigns for Britain to leave the European Union and tighter controls on immigration.

Cllr Eastwood, a Green Party politician who gave up fostering last year, said: “I would find it surprising if the family had not already given a lot of information about their political beliefs, it should have been known and understood before they were approved. If so and social services had concerns, they should not have gone ahead rather than change their minds later.”

She added being a member of UKIP should not disqualify someone from being a foster carer, and added: “It should not be a problem unless they had good reason to suspect they held extreme views which would have a detrimental impact on the children.”

Update 3

BeautifulBurnout posts: 2 Dec 20121

And the potential harm arises from the possibility that they – or their friends – might voice opinions about EU immigrants which could potentially distress or upset already-vulnerable children temporarily in their care.

But this couple has been fostering for seven years so I’d have thought by now they’d know how to behave in the company of the children they’re fostering.

and:

If the LA have the remotest fear that the placement might have an adverse affect on the children, they have a legal obligation to place them elsewhere.

The remotest fear?  Would that not preclude anyone from fostering?

Update 2

BeautifulBurnout posts:

Of course it wasn’t. There was always going to be far, far more to this story than simply “You are a member of UKIP and we think you’re racist so you’re not allowed to be foster parents” which is what the foam-at-the-mouthers were insisting – some of them quite vociferously and abusively – was all it was about. (Even though Rotherham Council had always confirmed that it was nothing to do with the quality of care given by the carers, and that they would continue to be registered foster carers for Rotherham).

But this somewhat flies in the face of her earlier statement that a mere ideological difference should allow social workers to seize the children, even the ones she was fostering.

In the same way that as a Buddhist, if I were a foster carer and, having placed, say, a Christian or an atheist child with us, then social services decided we were not suitable because of our beliefs, I would say “Fair enough”.

And even earlier:

Neither UKIP nor the foster carers concerned seem to have given any thought for the welfare of the children

Having said even earlier:

I am making no assumptions against the parents at all.

And wasn’t it MrsBootstraps whose only publicised venture into fostering resulted in her having to rescue her “foster son”  along with her own son in the early hours of the morning, from the British Transport Police at Waterloo Station. And where was MrsBootstraps at the time?

————————————————————————-

Update 1

Jane Pidd writing in the Guardian:

The placement with the Ukip-supporting foster couple was not intended to be long-term. It was an emergency move amid allegations that the children’s birth father had sexually abused two of his daughters and had held a knife to his wife’s head while she was holding their baby. According to the birth parents, the children were taken in a raid by police and social workers earlier this year.

He (the fostered chindren’s natural father) said he was “disgusted” to learn that his children had been placed with foster carers who were members of a party opposed to eastern European immigration.

Well here’s Nigel Farrage of UKIP on the BBC’s Question Time 25 November 2012:

“I am not opposed to immigration”  and

“If you want skilled people to come to the UK you give people work permits”

But don’t let facts interfere with a desperate attempt to get Rotherham’s Children and Young People’s Services off the hook.

————————————————————————————-

Rich James posted the following in response to a post from Wellcitedevidence before  he was banned from CiF following complaints from The Untrusted censors:

“True – these cases are usually extremely complex……But that is not really a chance a social worker can be expected to take – they can only make educated estimates, and on that basis, try to predict whether children will receive the right level – and in this case, the right kind – of support.”

To which Wellcitedevidence would have replied:

And presumably that’s exactly what the social workers did when they asked the parents to foster the three children. And if they didn’t they’ll be in even greater trouble once the enquiries start.

The question you need to answer is why they suddenly changed their minds?

After all there are very few members of political parties who sign up to every aspect of its creed. Do you think Dennis Skinner and Tony Blair hold identical views as members of the same Labour Party?

What about ‘Majorities of Labour voters hold extremist right-wing views on Europe and immigration’?

Is it ok to allow these people to foster because they’re safe Labour Party members and assume members of UKIP are not safe?

My suspicion is that there’s something far more sinister and rotten in the Rotherham Children and Young People’s Services and I hope the enquiries discover exactly what it is.

This is looking more and more like and episode of Clare in the Community, but without the comedy.

And 10 hours later RichJames posted the following about what earlier he’d clearly considered a matter worth commenting on – “Total storm in a teacup, from start to finish.

And now he retracts this and hour later with –

“The social workers in question made the only reasonable decision they could have made.”

But which decision RichJames, the one to place the children or the one to take them away?

ArecBalrin ended his time in the wilderness and weighs in with 

“My household is in a supported lodging arrangement with Barnardos and we were all vetted. Barnados also rightly bars UKIP and BNP supporters from this programme.”

So is he saying that the Rotherham foster parents were vetted (as doubtless they were) or somehow they avoided this procedure?

%d bloggers like this: