UKIP Foster Parents

[BadFish]

Wow - a points system so similar to the US, Australia and Canada that it could have been written by them. Strangely their immigration systems work very well. Once again an imagined hostility to foreigners - it's really rather simple, if you have a skill we want and aren't going to sponge then your welcome, otherwise tough luck ( asylum seekers excepted ). It's only the wooley left that get all heated about not allowing any Jean, Xi, or Patel in.

Can't speak for the US or Canada but you could quite easily swap in hostility to The Lebanese community for the Polish. IN fact take your pick the right wing looneys over here endlessly complain about immigration ......taking our jobs etc etc.
If it is not one group of immigrants upsetting people it is another.

Asylum seekers aren't welcome? People fleeing persecution and possible death from some poor war torn hell hole and asking for help (legally I might add) are not welcome by you.

I find this attitude incredible. Are you really saying you would not help someone who desperately needs your help?

 

[melias shoes]

Criticism of the EU is fine by me. Believing a slogan like "British jobs for British workers" benefits anyone other than the owners of capital and extremist parties is at best naive.

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't PM Gordon Brown use the "British jobs for British Workers" in a speech once?

 

[abc]

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't PM Gordon Brown use the "British jobs for British Workers" in a speech once?

Yes he did! In fact I think he coined the phrase and UKIP took it on. GB was roundly condemned for the phrase by the Daily Mail and the like (because they were naturally anti Labour) but when UKIP make it their policy it is suddenly acceptable.

 

[cunning fergus]

Posts #51 and #74 where he analyses UKIP's immigration and small business policies. And if you think me agreeing with him on those issues makes me a 'f***ing Thatcherite capitalist', well, I'll be polite and say your knowledge of politics is a trifle limited.

Are you kidding? Posts #51 and #74 are not analysis, they are the opinions of a bigot. But for fairness let's look at Dandyman's "analysis" in more detail so we can explore your unequivical support for his assessment. Dandyman said that UKIP's policies include:

Jailing those fleeing persecution and torture - bigotted bullshit, show me where this is UKIP policy.
Exiting the EU - no shit, hardly exemplary insight.
Removing the residency rights of EU citizens - surely if the UK exitted the EU then we would naturally have no obligation to comply with EU law, so no surprise here. Show me the policy where it says that settled EU residents would be thrown out, which is what this is inferring.
Discriminating against working class migrants - good, explain to me how this is bad for the UK working class.
Removing any human rights protection for UK citizens and residents - Fair enough, but withdrawal from ECHR does not equate to no HR protection......anyway as we have seen on countless cases why should the decisions of the UK courts/demcratically elected Govt be secondary to the whims of a system that has judges from legal backwaters such as Albania, Romania and Montenegro?
Variety of other Monday Club frothing at the mouth nonsense - probably true but articulated in the style of a bigot.
They are a legal party and people are free to support and vote for them - this is true.
The rest of us are equally free to regard them as repellent far right racist nut jobs - opinion based on bigotry.

I responded to #74. with regard to socialism, however I did not respond to the statement:

"Secondly the discrimination is between those migrants who have made a massive contribution to the NHS, public transport and when they existed the manufacturing and textile industries whom UKIP want to ban and the motley collection of high net worth Russian gangsters and Arab arms dealers whom, they are happy to let in rather than the British working class."

Seems like more bigotry to me..........but then again I am struggling to see why restrictions on the labour markets in favour of the UK workforce is a bad thing?

Frankly (and I will say it again) anyone who supports a pan european wide free labour market is either a rabid capitalist (in the spirit of Thatcher) or the f***ing bourgeois. The facts are that the working class of this country have already been sacrificed on the alter of open EU borders and the unions and Labour said f*** all. Actually that's not true they said that about 15k would come.

The old unions, the old labour party and Kinnock stood full square to withdraw from the EU/EEC because (amongst other things) they knew this would happen...........if you think they were "right wing nut-jobs" then its not my knowledge of politics that is limited. But then here's the trouble with politics today, too many up their own f***ing arse about what they represent, they love a soundbite, but f*** all else to back it up.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

C
Asylum seekers aren't welcome? People fleeing persecution and possible death from some poor war torn hell hole and asking for help (legally I might add) are not welcome by you.

I find this attitude incredible. Are you really saying you would not help someone who desperately needs your help?

You misunderstood my post - it said that the skills and wealth measures are all good measures for normal day to day immigration ( and assuming you were British then you had to achieve the correct score to live in Oz ) BUT those fleeing persecution should be exempt from those measures. That's what the phrase "asylum seekers excepted" conveyed ). Australia has it perfectly correct but apparently, according to some, it's a racist policy !

 

[Soulman]

Firstly the UKIP being racist...

Secondly.
Labour controlled council.
In a Fostering Handbook (The Good Practice Guide) published in 2010 by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, I found the following words:

‘Because the UK is institutionally racist, all white people are implicated unless they actively oppose racism.’

Thirdly.
This story just shows how PC claptrap is actually harming some people in the UK
Adoption: Social workers tried to 'colour match' our beautiful baby like a pot of Dulux paint | Mail Online

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Are you kidding? Posts #51 and #74 are not analysis, they are the opinions of a bigot. But for fairness let's look at Dandyman's "analysis" in more detail so we can explore your unequivical support for his assessment. Dandyman said that UKIP's policies include:

Jailing those fleeing persecution and torture - bigotted bullshit, show me where this is UKIP policy.
Exiting the EU - no shit, hardly exemplary insight.
Removing the residency rights of EU citizens - surely if the UK exitted the EU then we would naturally have no obligation to comply with EU law, so no surprise here. Show me the policy where it says that settled EU residents would be thrown out, which is what this is inferring.
Discriminating against working class migrants - good, explain to me how this is bad for the UK working class.
Removing any human rights protection for UK citizens and residents - Fair enough, but withdrawal from ECHR does not equate to no HR protection......anyway as we have seen on countless cases why should the decisions of the UK courts/demcratically elected Govt be secondary to the whims of a system that has judges from legal backwaters such as Albania, Romania and Montenegro?
Variety of other Monday Club frothing at the mouth nonsense - probably true but articulated in the style of a bigot.
They are a legal party and people are free to support and vote for them - this is true.
The rest of us are equally free to regard them as repellent far right racist nut jobs - opinion based on bigotry.

I responded to #74. with regard to socialism, however I did not respond to the statement:

"Secondly the discrimination is between those migrants who have made a massive contribution to the NHS, public transport and when they existed the manufacturing and textile industries whom UKIP want to ban and the motley collection of high net worth Russian gangsters and Arab arms dealers whom, they are happy to let in rather than the British working class."

Seems like more bigotry to me..........but then again I am struggling to see why restrictions on the labour markets in favour of the UK workforce is a bad thing?

Frankly (and I will say it again) anyone who supports a pan european wide free labour market is either a rabid capitalist (in the spirit of Thatcher) or the f***ing bourgeois. The facts are that the working class of this country have already been sacrificed on the alter of open EU borders and the unions and Labour said f*** all. Actually that's not true they said that about 15k would come.

The old unions, the old labour party and Kinnock stood full square to withdraw from the EU/EEC because (amongst other things) they knew this would happen...........if you think they were "right wing nut-jobs" then its not my knowledge of politics that is limited. But then here's the trouble with politics today, too many up their own f***ing arse about what they represent, they love a soundbite, but f*** all else to back it up.

Perfect post. I'll re-iterate, the two main parties could condemn UKIP to history if either of them had the guts to hold an in/out referendum but neither do. That's because both know they would lose - the Tories know they would fail to see power for a long long time and Labour know their cushy post British politics jobs would dry up ( Like that socialist Kinnock who took millions of pounds of our money !!!! ).

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Absolutely this . All very sinister. The main concern for me is people who suggest that if you vote ukip then you are bigoted. However no one has suggested that the very people who took these children away because of differing of views are the actual bigots.All very nasty,leaves a bad taste in the mouth. These are the people who call the tories nasty.

Apparently they didn't snoop on them they were alerted by a member of the public who new the couple - once alerted they had to investigate

 

[Dandyman]

Are you kidding? Posts #51 and #74 are not analysis, they are the opinions of a bigot. But for fairness let's look at Dandyman's "analysis" in more detail so we can explore your unequivical support for his assessment. Dandyman said that UKIP's policies include:

Jailing those fleeing persecution and torture - bigotted bullshit, show me where this is UKIP policy.
Exiting the EU - no shit, hardly exemplary insight.
Removing the residency rights of EU citizens - surely if the UK exitted the EU then we would naturally have no obligation to comply with EU law, so no surprise here. Show me the policy where it says that settled EU residents would be thrown out, which is what this is inferring.
Discriminating against working class migrants - good, explain to me how this is bad for the UK working class.
Removing any human rights protection for UK citizens and residents - Fair enough, but withdrawal from ECHR does not equate to no HR protection......anyway as we have seen on countless cases why should the decisions of the UK courts/demcratically elected Govt be secondary to the whims of a system that has judges from legal backwaters such as Albania, Romania and Montenegro?
Variety of other Monday Club frothing at the mouth nonsense - probably true but articulated in the style of a bigot.
They are a legal party and people are free to support and vote for them - this is true.
The rest of us are equally free to regard them as repellent far right racist nut jobs - opinion based on bigotry.

I responded to #74. with regard to socialism, however I did not respond to the statement:

"Secondly the discrimination is between those migrants who have made a massive contribution to the NHS, public transport and when they existed the manufacturing and textile industries whom UKIP want to ban and the motley collection of high net worth Russian gangsters and Arab arms dealers whom, they are happy to let in rather than the British working class."

Seems like more bigotry to me..........but then again I am struggling to see why restrictions on the labour markets in favour of the UK workforce is a bad thing?

Frankly (and I will say it again) anyone who supports a pan european wide free labour market is either a rabid capitalist (in the spirit of Thatcher) or the f***ing bourgeois. The facts are that the working class of this country have already been sacrificed on the alter of open EU borders and the unions and Labour said f*** all. Actually that's not true they said that about 15k would come.

The old unions, the old labour party and Kinnock stood full square to withdraw from the EU/EEC because (amongst other things) they knew this would happen...........if you think they were "right wing nut-jobs" then its not my knowledge of politics that is limited. But then here's the trouble with politics today, too many up their own f***ing arse about what they represent, they love a soundbite, but f*** all else to back it up.

Read the UKIP manifesto where they state asylum seekers will be held in secure centres. Once again you totally fail to refute anything I said on a factual basis. Restrictions of the free movement of labour and none on the movement of capital and you still struggle to identify Farage as a typical right-wing con artist?

 

[Soulman]

The couple, who do not want to be named to avoid identifying the children they have fostered, are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire.
The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.
Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.
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.
They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.
However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Read the UKIP manifesto where they state asylum seekers will be held in secure centres. Once again you totally fail to refute anything I said on a factual basis.

And you've failed to understand that this happened under your beloved Labour as well. There is no difference. Why would you not hold asylum seekers until they were PROVEN asylum seekers ? Or are you seriously suggesting that the moment someone gets to our borders and says "I'm persecuted and claim asylum" that we go "oh poor you, in you come, we believe you" ?

EDIT - remember virtually every asylum seeker must have passed through a safe country before getting to us.

 

[Soulman]

And you've failed to understand that this happened under your beloved Labour as well. There is no difference. Why would you not hold asylum seekers until they were PROVEN asylum seekers ? Or are you seriously suggesting that the moment someone gets to our borders and says "I'm persecuted and claim asylum" that we go "oh poor you, in you come, we believe you" ?

EDIT - remember virtually every asylum seeker must have passed through a safe country before getting to us.

Hmmm Liebour eh.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if this episode caused Labour to lose in Rotherham this week. The ever corrupt Denis Mac-Polski-Shane was MP for the socialist republic of Rotherham.

 

[Dandyman]

And you've failed to understand that this happened under your beloved Labour as well. There is no difference. Why would you not hold asylum seekers until they were PROVEN asylum seekers ? Or are you seriously suggesting that the moment someone gets to our borders and says "I'm persecuted and claim asylum" that we go "oh poor you, in you come, we believe you" ?

EDIT - remember virtually every asylum seeker must have passed through a safe country before getting to us.

I have not voted for Labour in a General Election since the invasion of Iraq. Your (in)ability to identify my politics is as woeful as the rest of your posts.

 

[Buzzer]

You people debating the minutae of the UKIP immigration policy are completely missing the point of this issue:

Should a council make judgements on the suitability of people to be foster parents on the basis of supporting a legitimate and credible political party that is mainstream enough to have councillors and Euro MPs and representatives in the House of Lords?

Because it is undeniable that UKIP are all those things. If you say yes, then, to me, it says more about your intolerance for other people's beliefs than some half-arsed argument about protecting children from harm. And it's ironic that those shouting the loudest in the council's defence are the ones who claim to be the most liberal-thinkers. I guess it's true - there's no-one more fascist than a hippy.


BTW - I don't vote UKIP. Never have, never will and I don't read the Daily Mail.

 

[Soulman]

You people debating the minutae of the UKIP immigration policy are completely missing the point of this issue:

Should a council make judgements on the suitability of people to be foster parents on the basis of supporting a legitimate and credible political party that is mainstream enough to have councillors and Euro MPs and representatives in the House of Lords?

Because it is undeniable that UKIP are all those things. If you say yes, then, to me, it says more about your intolerance for other people's beliefs than some half-arsed argument about protecting children from harm. And it's ironic that those shouting the loudest in the council's defence are the ones who claim to be the most liberal-thinkers. I guess it's true - there's no-one more fascist than a hippy.


BTW - I don't vote UKIP. Never have, never will and I don't read the Daily Mail.

.......nice one

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

You people debating the minutae of the UKIP immigration policy are completely missing the point of this issue:

Should a council make judgements on the suitability of people to be foster parents on the basis of supporting a legitimate and credible political party that is mainstream enough to have councillors and Euro MPs and representatives in the House of Lords?

Because it is undeniable that UKIP are all those things. If you say yes, then, to me, it says more about your intolerance for other people's beliefs than some half-arsed argument about protecting children from harm. And it's ironic that those shouting the loudest in the council's defence are the ones who claim to be the most liberal-thinkers. I guess it's true - there's no-one more fascist than a hippy.


BTW - I don't vote UKIP. Never have, never will and I don't read the Daily Mail.

Good post that man!

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

You people debating the minutae of the UKIP immigration policy are completely missing the point of this issue:

Should a council make judgements on the suitability of people to be foster parents on the basis of supporting a legitimate and credible political party that is mainstream enough to have councillors and Euro MPs and representatives in the House of Lords?

Because it is undeniable that UKIP are all those things. If you say yes, then, to me, it says more about your intolerance for other people's beliefs than some half-arsed argument about protecting children from harm. And it's ironic that those shouting the loudest in the council's defence are the ones who claim to be the most liberal-thinkers. I guess it's true - there's no-one more fascist than a hippy.


BTW - I don't vote UKIP. Never have, never will and I don't read the Daily Mail.

Good post.

 

[pastafarian]

Apparently they didn't snoop on them they were alerted by a member of the public who new the couple - once alerted they had to investigate

i must be missing the point here

why on earth did they have to investigate?

 

[abc]

You people debating the minutae of the UKIP immigration policy are completely missing the point of this issue:

Should a council make judgements on the suitability of people to be foster parents on the basis of supporting a legitimate and credible political party that is mainstream enough to have councillors and Euro MPs and representatives in the House of Lords?

Because it is undeniable that UKIP are all those things. If you say yes, then, to me, it says more about your intolerance for other people's beliefs than some half-arsed argument about protecting children from harm. And it's ironic that those shouting the loudest in the council's defence are the ones who claim to be the most liberal-thinkers. I guess it's true - there's no-one more fascist than a hippy.


BTW - I don't vote UKIP. Never have, never will and I don't read the Daily Mail.

I think you are right but , honestly, would you hold the same view if the parents were active members of the BNP?

 

[Chicken Runner61]

i must be missing the point here

why on earth did they have to investigate?

Don't shoot the messenger - I don't agree with it ! - this was something I heard on the radio midweek but someone reported it as abuse and they had to investigate it and it's their policy to immediately remove the children in case it's true!