Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Foster children from UKIP supporters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120
Rotherham Council have said "...the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration."
The obvious sub-text being the council feel UKIP and therefore UKIP's supporters are racist.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people manage to think that being concerned about immigration equals racism.
Leading question alert - Is the only prejudice shown in this sorry affair from Rotherham Council?
Rotherham Council have said "...the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration."
The obvious sub-text being the council feel UKIP and therefore UKIP's supporters are racist.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people manage to think that being concerned about immigration equals racism.
Leading question alert - Is the only prejudice shown in this sorry affair from Rotherham Council?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
sp1814
/// You brought up cross race fostering at 11:43. ///
Read through my 11.43 post one more time. where have I made any reference to cross-race?
It is neither the couple or UKIP who are the racist, but those who are against indigenous white British couples, fostering non indigenous white children.
11:43 Sat 24th Nov 2012
'None indigenous white children' Yes. I believe the children came from Poland, so they are 'European White Children'.
/// You brought up cross race fostering at 11:43. ///
Read through my 11.43 post one more time. where have I made any reference to cross-race?
It is neither the couple or UKIP who are the racist, but those who are against indigenous white British couples, fostering non indigenous white children.
11:43 Sat 24th Nov 2012
'None indigenous white children' Yes. I believe the children came from Poland, so they are 'European White Children'.
sp1814
/// Be the bigger man, and let this one slide ///
I am already the 'bigger man' on this one, so why should I let it slide.
Admit in this case that it is you who is determined to bring colour into the equation, so as to get some sort of message over.
You have already admitted that you had read the post wrong in your first attempt at accusing me of saying something that I had not, and then you followed it again with the same type of accusations.
UKIP leader said:
/// "Politically, I am not surprised at all. This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils. ///
/// "We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration." ///
/// Be the bigger man, and let this one slide ///
I am already the 'bigger man' on this one, so why should I let it slide.
Admit in this case that it is you who is determined to bring colour into the equation, so as to get some sort of message over.
You have already admitted that you had read the post wrong in your first attempt at accusing me of saying something that I had not, and then you followed it again with the same type of accusations.
UKIP leader said:
/// "Politically, I am not surprised at all. This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils. ///
/// "We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration." ///
There is more to this story than meets the eye.
Not that it should matter, but the assumption that the foster children would be classed as "european white children" seems false.
From the BBC, the foster kids were classed as "not indigenous white british", which implies a differently coloured skin, and the Telegraph were even clearer in one paragraph;
"They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement."
http
On the face of it, this is a spectacularly stupid decision by the social services. The couple have been fostering for 7 years, the children were described in the article as thriving, and the couple themselves with a background in caring for the disabled and nursing amply qualified. To remove children of a troubled family background from what seems a stable and loving fostering environment on the basis of an anonymous phone call tip off and support for a mainstream political party is absurd.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, and whether more details emerge, but if this was some sort of politically motivated decision in furtherance of a left wing agenda, as some commentators perceive it, then whichever genius that thought it up needs to go back to school - how anyone could imagine that this would be seen as a positive boost to left wing support must be barking....
Not that it should matter, but the assumption that the foster children would be classed as "european white children" seems false.
From the BBC, the foster kids were classed as "not indigenous white british", which implies a differently coloured skin, and the Telegraph were even clearer in one paragraph;
"They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement."
http
On the face of it, this is a spectacularly stupid decision by the social services. The couple have been fostering for 7 years, the children were described in the article as thriving, and the couple themselves with a background in caring for the disabled and nursing amply qualified. To remove children of a troubled family background from what seems a stable and loving fostering environment on the basis of an anonymous phone call tip off and support for a mainstream political party is absurd.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, and whether more details emerge, but if this was some sort of politically motivated decision in furtherance of a left wing agenda, as some commentators perceive it, then whichever genius that thought it up needs to go back to school - how anyone could imagine that this would be seen as a positive boost to left wing support must be barking....
I for one am sick & tired of the sniping that AOG is getting for simply bringing to our attention items of important news that perhaps some of us might miss without his posts I do not buy a newspaper these days because of the political bias most of them reflect towards one particular political party or another so I welcome AOG's contributions to these pages. Well done AOG please keep 'em coming.
WR.
WR.
for those who seem to think that local councils are not concerned about placing children of a different hue for adoption and being fostered better think again.
A very large campaign across ours and a neighbouring borough has the poster wording quite clear, asian and black children to be placed with asian, black families. The posters were up in the council, on London buses, and in the CAB.
So if they have been discriminated against because they vote UKIP, heaven help the poor children.
A very large campaign across ours and a neighbouring borough has the poster wording quite clear, asian and black children to be placed with asian, black families. The posters were up in the council, on London buses, and in the CAB.
So if they have been discriminated against because they vote UKIP, heaven help the poor children.
But back to AOG's original post:
It is neither the couple or UKIP who are the racist, but those who are against indigenous white British couples, fostering non indigenous white children.
It's still a very odd statement to make. Odd and wrong. Odd, wrong and without precedent.
First of all, it's odd because if all the protagonists are white, then how could any party be showing racist attitudes? You would need someone from a different racial background in order to achieve that.
It is neither the couple or UKIP who are the racist, but those who are against indigenous white British couples, fostering non indigenous white children.
It's still a very odd statement to make. Odd and wrong. Odd, wrong and without precedent.
First of all, it's odd because if all the protagonists are white, then how could any party be showing racist attitudes? You would need someone from a different racial background in order to achieve that.
Their colour, ethnicity should not matter as long as they end up with people who will care for them and love them.
Of all the posts so far, and all the comments contained therein, none make more sense than the above. These poor children are political pawns who will suffer while careerists make their moves, and it is interesting that both Labour and the Tories have called for an investigation, while the female spokseperson for Rotherham Council, (no idea who she is), indulged in corporatespeak while saying nothing of any intrinsic value whatsoever.
Poor kids.
Of all the posts so far, and all the comments contained therein, none make more sense than the above. These poor children are political pawns who will suffer while careerists make their moves, and it is interesting that both Labour and the Tories have called for an investigation, while the female spokseperson for Rotherham Council, (no idea who she is), indulged in corporatespeak while saying nothing of any intrinsic value whatsoever.
Poor kids.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.