UKIP Foster Parents

[Brovion]

The topic relates to the conclusion of the social workers/council that if you support UKIP it is incompatible with being able to provide a safe loving environment for immigrant children.

For me (and I think you are referring to me in your post as a socialist UKIP supporter) I am against the EU for a number of different reasons, but primarily I am opposed to it because it has created entirely free pan European labour markets. This ideology is essentially from the monetarist right wing (to use the common vernacular) and over the last 10 years it has had massive negative implications for the working classes in this country; particularly the unskilled. It is this constituency of society whose jobs deserve most protection, and they should have been protected first and foremost by the Labour Party.

The Labour Party and the unions were a long time opposed to the EU because of this free market capitalist ideology, and it was Tory Blair who completely changed the outlook so that the party could appeal to big business and the middle class. The unions sucked this up because the quid pro quo of the new approach would that they could influence social policy on a EU level. So, 10 years on and what’s happened? The UK working classes are having to compete harder for less jobs, work harder for less money and with overall less job security.

It is a shame that UKIP are the only political party that is threatening the vice like grip of the established parties with regard to our relationship with EU, however they are, so if this point is important to you where do you go to register opposition to the EU with a purist socialist flavour..............SWP? No2EU? Neither are credible.

If polls are to be believed UKIP is aligned to the views of over 60% of the electorate on the EU and hence we have got Miliband taking a more aggressive position in public on the EU and complete silence from the Liberals.

I don’t think I have ever fully agreed with the full portfolio of policies from any political party, anyone who does is usually a myopic imbecile, however in relation to UKIP’s position of taking back control of our labour markets (in my view) that is a policy that is aligned to the old socialist policies of Labour. A vote for UKIP does not have to be an endorsement of everything they stand for, it rarely is for other political parties. The more pragmatic minded will consider a vote for UKIP to be on the single issue they are most well known for..........which could be from a more conventional right wing anti authoritarian perspective.

The couple in question are working class from Rotherham, reportedly they were previously labour supporters. Moreover they are ex civil servants (RN nad NHS) and obviously philanthropic in nature since they were long time foster carers...................they do not sound like bigots or Tories or BNP to me.

This board is saturated in the instinctive shrill hysterical bullshit that by supporting UKIP you have to be a swivel right wing loon...............it is an insult to that couple. It is the same absurd reactionary thick headed assessment that also lead a social worker/council to decide that they had to take the kids away from them in the first place. That is why it matters.

Totally agree. Also, having now read more, (partly about UKIP supporters in Rotherham but also UKIP generally), I retract my 'all UKIP supporters are swivel-eyed right-wing nut-jobs' statement. I have discovered that UKIP has attracted a lot of ex-Labour people who would probably have described themselves as 'left wing' and are part of the disillusioned, and largely disenfranchised, white working class. Much like the fact that most of the media would have you believe that all opposition to the EU comes from the Right they have not widely reported this fact. As well as being anti-EU they also hold the view (as do I) that to be concerned about immigration does NOT automatically make you a racist. Belatedly Milliband has come round to the view as well, whether he can convince the Guardianistas to drop their lazy assumptions is another matter.

I certainly have a more positive view of UKIP than I did a week ago. There. That's a sentence as a 'born again communist' I never thought I'd write.

 

[keaton]

The topic relates to the conclusion of the social workers/council that if you support UKIP it is incompatible with being able to provide a safe loving environment for immigrant children.

For me (and I think you are referring to me in your post as a socialist UKIP supporter) I am against the EU for a number of different reasons, but primarily I am opposed to it because it has created entirely free pan European labour markets. This ideology is essentially from the monetarist right wing (to use the common vernacular) and over the last 10 years it has had massive negative implications for the working classes in this country; particularly the unskilled. It is this constituency of society whose jobs deserve most protection, and they should have been protected first and foremost by the Labour Party.

The Labour Party and the unions were a long time opposed to the EU because of this free market capitalist ideology, and it was Tory Blair who completely changed the outlook so that the party could appeal to big business and the middle class. The unions sucked this up because the quid pro quo of the new approach would that they could influence social policy on a EU level. So, 10 years on and what’s happened? The UK working classes are having to compete harder for less jobs, work harder for less money and with overall less job security.

It is a shame that UKIP are the only political party that is threatening the vice like grip of the established parties with regard to our relationship with EU, however they are, so if this point is important to you where do you go to register opposition to the EU with a purist socialist flavour..............SWP? No2EU? Neither are credible.

If polls are to be believed UKIP is aligned to the views of over 60% of the electorate on the EU and hence we have got Miliband taking a more aggressive position in public on the EU and complete silence from the Liberals.

I don’t think I have ever fully agreed with the full portfolio of policies from any political party, anyone who does is usually a myopic imbecile, however in relation to UKIP’s position of taking back control of our labour markets (in my view) that is a policy that is aligned to the old socialist policies of Labour. A vote for UKIP does not have to be an endorsement of everything they stand for, it rarely is for other political parties. The more pragmatic minded will consider a vote for UKIP to be on the single issue they are most well known for..........which could be from a more conventional right wing anti authoritarian perspective.

The couple in question are working class from Rotherham, reportedly they were previously labour supporters. Moreover they are ex civil servants (RN nad NHS) and obviously philanthropic in nature since they were long time foster carers...................they do not sound like bigots or Tories or BNP to me.

This board is saturated in the instinctive shrill hysterical bullshit that by supporting UKIP you have to be a swivel right wing loon...............it is an insult to that couple. It is the same absurd reactionary thick headed assessment that also lead a social worker/council to decide that they had to take the kids away from them in the first place. That is why it matters.

The thing is that from a social work perspective it's the kid's that's important not the foster carers. It's not that UKIP is or isn't racist that's the point, it's that is that the best placement for the child. I think it's valid that an vulnerable immigrant child might be better looked after my someone who isn't strongly anti-immigration

 

[User removed 4]

The thing is that from a social work perspective it's the kid's that's important not the foster carers. It's not that UKIP is or isn't racist that's the point, it's that is that the best placement for the child. I think it's valid that an vulnerable immigrant child might be better looked after my someone who isn't strongly anti-immigration

I have some fairly strong views on immigration( no shit!!) does it change how I deal with immigrants on a one to one basis ? No! would it change how I behaved to a small vunerable child ? No it f***ing wouldn't and I think it's insulting to say the least for you to assume this would be the case with these foster parents, who by all accounts have a previously unblemished record.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Totally agree. Also, having now read more, (partly about UKIP supporters in Rotherham but also UKIP generally), I retract my 'all UKIP supporters are swivel-eyed right-wing nut-jobs' statement. I have discovered that UKIP has attracted a lot of ex-Labour people who would probably have described themselves as 'left wing' and are part of the disillusioned, and largely disenfranchised, white working class. Much like the fact that most of the media would have you believe that all opposition to the EU comes from the Right they have not widely reported this fact. As well as being anti-EU they also hold the view (as do I) that to be concerned about immigration does NOT automatically make you a racist. Belatedly Milliband has come round to the view as well, whether he can convince the Guardianistas to drop their lazy assumptions is another matter.

I certainly have a more positive view of UKIP than I did a week ago. There. That's a sentence as a 'born again communist' I never thought I'd write.

Good on you. I used to vote Labour myself, but I can no longer trust them. I feel like a lot of other people. I feel that I have been short changed, and it feels like our opinions count for absolutely nothing. UKIP are at least offering something that makes sense to me, because I am certainly not getting this from any other party. What happens in Brussels effects us all now, so it's important we start to understand exactly what is going on here, before we get short changed again. Unfortunately for Spain, Italy and all the other countries, they are in deep with absolutely no way to escape.

 

[keaton]

I have some fairly strong views on immigration( no shit!!) does it change how I deal with immigrants on a one to one basis ? No! would it change how I behaved to a small vunerable child ? No it f***ing wouldn't and I think it's insulting to say the least for you to assume this would be the case with these foster parents, who by all accounts have a previously unblemished record.

Good to see you're still always up for a sensible discussion bushy. If it helps I imagine if you did try and foster children it wouldn't be your racism that would be the problem

 

[dingodan]

You just cannot call a political party "UK Independence". Nor could you call it "British", or "English". There may be no reference to country at all.

We are Europeans, people who like their own countries are right wing nationalists, and are also likely to be bigoted racists. More over, if you entertain the idea of supporting a party like this, or even consider any of their policies or ideas...in fact if you have listened to them at all, questions should and will rightly be asked about you.

------------------------------------------------

This is know as "Political Correctness", and can also be referred to as "Psychological Warfare".

Welcome to the Jungle.

 

[User removed 4]

Good to see you're still always up for a sensible discussion bushy. If it helps I imagine if you did try and foster children it wouldn't be your racism that would be the problem

I fail to see what was wrong with my post , maybe you find the word "f***ing" over confrontational

 

[goldstone]

I have worked with non-whites, principally from south Asia, extensively in the past 15 years. Very hard working and smart people in the main. Have hired a good number of them, socialised with them and worked with them as customers.

HOWEVER I am 100% against any further net immigration to this country. Incidentally so are many of the south Asians in the country. The UK is swiftly losing it's traditional character with large areas of certain cities looking like downtown Delhi or Bangladesh. It was fine when we had Southall given over to the Indian community and Brixton to the West Indians, but now it has really got out of control. Enough is enough. The UK is FULL!

So I will be voting UKIP (it was BNP last time, but maybe they are a little extreme) as a result of my support for their immigration policy and their desire to get us out of the EU.

 

[User removed 4]

I have worked with non-whites, principally from south Asia, extensively in the past 15 years. Very hard working and smart people in the main. Have hired a good number of them, socialised with them and worked with them as customers.

HOWEVER I am 100% against any further net immigration to this country. Incidentally so are many of the south Asians in the country. The UK is swiftly losing it's traditional character with large areas of certain cities looking like downtown Delhi or Bangladesh. It was fine when we had Southall given over to the Indian community and Brixton to the West Indians, but now it has really got out of control. Enough is enough. The UK is FULL!

So I will be voting UKIP (it was BNP last time, but maybe they are a little extreme) as a result of my support for their immigration policy and their desire to get us out of the EU.

Lights blue touch paper ..................

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

I dont think ive said they are a racist party, if I did, it wasnt my intention. They have attracted support from the ex BNP supporters, as they are now the more credible rightwing party, and an Ex BNP member has stood for them in the elections, So, I can understand peoples fears about them.
QUOTE]

Here in Milton Keynes an ex member of the hardline Neo-Nazi November 9th Society, Margaret Burke nee Flynn, was elected last May for Labour!
‘Brainwashed’ councillor is former Nazi | The Jewish Chronicle Attached is a photo of Ms Burke's former partner.

Then there's Trevor Maxfield, who was once the BNP’s Blackburn with Darwen branch organiser, defected to the Labour Party circa 2008 and was selected by the Labour Party to fight Darwen’s Earcroft ward in the local council elections 0f 2011!

Maxfield has a long history in right wing/nationalist politics and was associated with Blood and Honour, the National Front and Combat 18.

There are some very suspect people in the Labour Party Dave.

 

[dingodan]

Here in Milton Keynes an ex member of the hardline Neo-Nazi November 9th Society, Margaret Burke nee Flynn, was elected last May for Labour!
‘Brainwashed’ councillor is former Nazi | The Jewish Chronicle Attached is a photo of Ms Burke's former partner.

Then there's Trevor Maxfield, who was once the BNP’s Blackburn with Darwen branch organiser, defected to the Labour Party circa 2008 and was selected by the Labour Party to fight Darwen’s Earcroft ward in the local council elections 0f 2011!

Maxfield has a long history in right wing/nationalist politics and was associated with Blood and Honour, the National Front and Combat 18.

There are some very suspect people in the Labour Party Dave.
View attachment 37129

Don't forget the young commies too!!

 

[dingodan]

If people want to get their head around what is/has been going on, then they need to start looking at what this man and others are looking at.

I am not saying that everything this guy says is correct, however this is the perspective from which our social and political condition can be understood.

It is no good reading a Downing Street press releases, or watching the news, or reading the papers, or listening to "commentators" or academics. We are victims of psychological warfare, and we should probably engage in some kind of psychological defense.

Pay particular attention @ 7:55



I don't agree with all of his politics, but I find Tony Benn to be a very decent man, with a bucket load of integrity. He too understands something of the nature of what is going on.

 

[daveinprague]

Milton, yes, im sure they have representation in all the parties, but the point ive been making is that there is a wide perception out there, nationally, that this is a racist party....apparently, from some of the people here, thats all my fault for posting on NSC..... but my point is, if there is this wide scale perception, there are going to be doubts, and whilst there are doubts, i would have err'd on the side of caution, where fostering children who are not English to them. As ive said several times, there are plenty of English children that could have been placed with them, and none of this fuss would have occured.
Nobody here has said these people, who by all accounts, are good people cannot foster more children. The decision has obviously been made because of the childrens origins, and the foster parents political membership of an anti immigration party...a lot of people see that as racist attitude...rightly or wrongly...
I dont like rightwingers, the same way as rightwingers dont like 'lefties', but they seem to have some sort of 'victim' thing going on with their politics on NSC. ;-)

 

[binky]

OK, I'll bite... possibly a little late.

most of the arguments on this thread, (leaving aside those from posters who cannot accept that UKIP are NOT racist), are predicated on the "fact" that UKIP are an anti-imigration party.

From my reading of the UKIP manifesto, this isn't the case.
UKIP are simply advocating managed immigration.

Their starting point though is to recognise that the situation is currently out of control, and state that in order to regain control, some fairly extreme measures need to be put in place temporarily, before reverting back to the kind of balanced state that existed before Tony Blairs government opened the floodgates.

Not only is this not racist.
It is not "anti-imigration"

In fact, it seems to me to be eminently sensible.

so getting us back to the original discussion, I fail to see how a family who support a party with a policy of managed immigration can be considered unfit to foster any child, immigrant, ethnic, or whatever.
It is this which makes the actions of social services, in this case, utterly unnacceptable.

If there is one good thing which has come out of this, it may be that the event has caused some people to intelligently research for themselves what UKIP stand for, instead of simply responding to the dog whistle politics of the main parties.

 

[Nibble]

[MENTION=11956]bushy[/MENTION] doesn't. He's f***ing Chelsea.

I'm, not sure [MENTION=5707]Nibble[/MENTION] or [MENTION=14574]daveinprague[/MENTION] are proper fans either, seeing as I've never seen either contribute to a football discussion on here.

Really. I'm gutted I don't match your standard of a "proper fan". The pies are shit, what number do you put your toaster on before a match, Me and the wife are thinking of having a meal before our son's birthday, how many times do you take a shit/ have sex/ cut your hair a week before a match? Any better?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

OK, I'll bite... possibly a little late.

most of the arguments on this thread, (leaving aside those from posters who cannot accept that UKIP are NOT racist), are predicated on the "fact" that UKIP are an anti-imigration party.

From my reading of the UKIP manifesto, this isn't the case.
UKIP are simply advocating managed immigration.

Their starting point though is to recognise that the situation is currently out of control, and state that in order to regain control, some fairly extreme measures need to be put in place temporarily, before reverting back to the kind of balanced state that existed before Tony Blairs government opened the floodgates.

Not only is this not racist.
It is not "anti-imigration"

In fact, it seems to me to be eminently sensible.

so getting us back to the original discussion, I fail to see how a family who support a party with a policy of managed immigration can be considered unfit to foster any child, immigrant, ethnic, or whatever.
It is this which makes the actions of social services, in this case, utterly unnacceptable.

If there is one good thing which has come out of this, it may be that the event has caused some people to intelligently research for themselves what UKIP stand for, instead of simply responding to the dog whistle politics of the main parties.

Your right, people probably checked out UKIP to see what all the fuss was about, and went looking for anything to do racism on their site. They found nothing and can see how pathetic the system has become. What has happend here has gained UKIP a lot of extra interest which is good.

 

[BadFish]

Net mirgration falls by a quarter. - Do we need the UKIP? the Tories have it all under control.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9711047/UK-migration-falls-by-a-quarter-as-student-and-foreign-worker-numbers-fall.html

 

[dingodan]

OK, I'll bite... possibly a little late.

most of the arguments on this thread, (leaving aside those from posters who cannot accept that UKIP are NOT racist), are predicated on the "fact" that UKIP are an anti-imigration party.

From my reading of the UKIP manifesto, this isn't the case.
UKIP are simply advocating managed immigration.

Their starting point though is to recognise that the situation is currently out of control, and state that in order to regain control, some fairly extreme measures need to be put in place temporarily, before reverting back to the kind of balanced state that existed before Tony Blairs government opened the floodgates.

Not only is this not racist.
It is not "anti-imigration"

In fact, it seems to me to be eminently sensible.

so getting us back to the original discussion, I fail to see how a family who support a party with a policy of managed immigration can be considered unfit to foster any child, immigrant, ethnic, or whatever.
It is this which makes the actions of social services, in this case, utterly unnacceptable.

If there is one good thing which has come out of this, it may be that the event has caused some people to intelligently research for themselves what UKIP stand for, instead of simply responding to the dog whistle politics of the main parties.

Sensible post.

 

[BadFish]

Net migration rates January 1st 2012

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=27

Rank Country Net migration rate (migrant(s)/1,000 population)
1 Qatar 40.62
2 Zimbabwe 23.77
3 British Virgin Islands 18.56
4 Turks and Caicos Islands 17.27
5 United Arab Emirates 16.82
6 Singapore 15.62
7 Cayman Islands 15.37
8 Bahrain 14.74
9 Anguilla 12.97
10 Aruba 9.29
11 San Marino 8.96
12 Luxembourg 8.15
13 Isle of Man 7.41
14 Djibouti 6.02
15 Australia 5.93
16 Canada 5.65
17 Spain 5.02
18 Botswana 4.75
19 Jersey 4.7
20 Italy 4.67
21 New Caledonia 4.18
22 Liechtenstein 3.98
23 Hong Kong 3.9
24 United States 3.62
25 Macau 3.46
26 Portugal 2.9
27 United Kingdom 2.59
28 Guernsey 2.59
29 Nepal 2.58
30 Brunei 2.55
31 Denmark 2.36
32 Greece 2.32
33 Antigua and Barbuda 2.29
34 New Zealand 2.26
35 Bermuda 2.04
36 Netherlands 2.02
37 Malta 2
38 Israel 1.94
39 Austria 1.79
40 Ireland 1.69
41 Norway 1.69
42 Sweden 1.65
43 Croatia 1.51
44 Hungary 1.37
45 Switzerland 1.27
46 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1.24
47 Belgium 1.22
48 France 1.1
49 Monaco 1.02
50 Seychelles 1.02
51 Rwanda 1
52 Czech Republic 0.97
53 Suriname 0.96
54 Costa Rica 0.86
55 Germany 0.71
56 Palau 0.71
57 Finland 0.62
58 Angola 0.55
59 Iceland 0.53
60 Turkey 0.5
61 Kazakhstan 0.43
62 Slovenia 0.39
63 Belarus 0.38
64 Chile 0.35
65 Slovakia 0.29
66 Russia 0.29
67 Namibia 0.15
68 Taiwan 0.03
69 Togo 0
70 Thailand 0
71 West Bank 0
72 Venezuela 0
73 East Timor 0
74 Burkina Faso 0
75 Saint Helena 0
76 Guinea-Bissau 0
77 Papua New Guinea 0
78 Serbia 0
79 Swaziland 0
80 Yemen 0
81 Mauritius 0
82 Niger 0
83 Vanuatu 0
84 Liberia 0
85 Libya 0
86 Madagascar 0
87 Mongolia 0
88 Montserrat 0
89 Malawi 0
90 Guinea 0
91 Gaza Strip 0
92 Guam 0
93 Cote d'Ivoire 0
94 Iraq 0
95 Japan 0
96 Korea, South 0
97 Kuwait 0
98 Cameroon 0
99 Central African Republic 0
100 Equatorial Guinea 0
101 Eritrea 0
102 Faroe Islands 0
103 Benin 0
104 Belize 0
105 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0
106 Bhutan 0
107 Andorra 0
108 Azerbaijan 0
109 Bahamas, The 0
110 Argentina 0
111 Ethiopia -0.01
112 Uganda -0.02
113 Korea, North -0.04
114 India -0.05
115 Ukraine -0.08
116 Paraguay -0.08
117 Brazil -0.09
118 Iran -0.11
119 Burundi -0.18
120 Egypt -0.2
121 Nigeria -0.22
122 Kenya -0.23
123 Romania -0.26
124 Algeria -0.27
125 Tanzania -0.29
126 Barbados -0.3
127 Burma -0.3
128 Cambodia -0.33
129 China -0.33
130 Vietnam -0.34
131 Congo, Republic of the -0.35
132 Malaysia -0.37
133 Panama -0.38
134 Ecuador -0.39
135 Congo, Democratic Republic of the -0.47
136 Oman -0.47
137 Poland -0.47
138 Macedonia -0.48
139 Ghana -0.56
140 Saudi Arabia -0.64
141 Colombia -0.66
142 Cape Verde -0.66
143 Lithuania -0.73
144 Zambia -0.76
145 Puerto Rico -0.82
146 Bolivia -0.84
147 Mauritania -0.89
148 French Polynesia -0.94
149 Bangladesh -1.04
150 Indonesia -1.08
151 Laos -1.14
152 Tajikistan -1.21
153 Honduras -1.22
154 Philippines -1.27
155 Uruguay -1.45
156 Tunisia -1.78
157 Senegal -1.82
158 Solomon Islands -1.86
159 Turkmenistan -1.9
160 Sri Lanka -1.95
161 Dominican Republic -1.98
162 Pakistan -2
163 Guatemala -2.08
164 Mozambique -2.13
165 Gabon -2.16
166 Latvia -2.34
167 Gambia, The -2.46
168 Afghanistan -2.51
169 Uzbekistan -2.65
170 Comoros -2.68
171 Bulgaria -2.84
172 Kiribati -2.85
173 Peru -3.03
174 Mexico -3.11
175 Gibraltar -3.31
176 Albania -3.33
177 Estonia -3.33
178 Armenia -3.35
179 Nicaragua -3.4
180 Grenada -3.45
181 Saint Lucia -3.54
182 Cuba -3.59
183 Morocco -3.67
184 Chad -3.74
185 Sierra Leone -3.86
186 Georgia -3.96
187 Sudan -4.52
188 Virgin Islands -4.8
189 Mali -5.08
190 Marshall Islands -5.1
191 Jamaica -5.17
192 Dominica -5.42
193 Wallis and Futuna -5.57
194 Greenland -5.98
195 South Africa -6.22
196 American Samoa -6.46
197 Trinidad and Tobago -6.76
198 Haiti -6.9
199 Tuvalu -6.97
200 Fiji -7.11
201 Kyrgyzstan -8.1
202 Lesotho -8.15
203 El Salvador -8.78
204 Saint Pierre and Miquelon -8.92
205 Sao Tome and Principe -9.14
206 Moldova -10.02
207 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines -10.47
208 Samoa -10.81
209 Somalia -11.62
210 Lebanon -12.08
211 Maldives -12.64
212 Guyana -12.78
213 Nauru -15.04
214 Tonga -17.9
215 Micronesia, Federated States of -20.97
216 Syria -27.82
217 Jordan -33.42
218 Northern Mariana Islands -41.32

 

[Nibble]

Good to see you're still always up for a sensible discussion bushy. If it helps I imagine if you did try and foster children it wouldn't be your racism that would be the problem

Haha. Spot on.