HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » United Kingdom (Group) » Just in case it gets lost...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:50 AM

Just in case it gets lost in the crossfire about those Rotherham UKIP folk ...

It is official UKIP policy to:

“End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies”

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1499-immigration-and-asylum-ukip-policy

... so whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, please let nobody pretend that it isn't!

Just saying.

The Skin

22 replies, 3034 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Just in case it gets lost in the crossfire about those Rotherham UKIP folk ... (Original post)
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 OP
T_i_B Nov 2012 #1
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #3
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #7
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #10
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #14
LeftishBrit Nov 2012 #2
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #4
LeftishBrit Nov 2012 #8
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #9
T_i_B Nov 2012 #5
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #6
loli phabay Nov 2012 #22
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #11
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #12
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #13
T_i_B Nov 2012 #15
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #16
T_i_B Nov 2012 #18
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #19
T_i_B Nov 2012 #20
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #21
non sociopath skin Nov 2012 #17

Response to non sociopath skin (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:20 AM

1. Can I also mention...

That the children the couple were fostering were from ethnic minority background.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for-being-members-of-Ukip.html

Furthermore, as someone who lives nearby & works in this neck of the woods I can believe that Rotherham social services would pull an idiotic stunt like this. They already have a major sex traffiking scandal on their hands let's not forget.

So let's not pretend that Rotherham Council are cleaner then clean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:27 PM

3. With respect, I'm not pretending anything.

I'm simply stating a fact.

I'm well aware that the children concerned were from an "ethnic minority background" which is why I drew attention to the UKIP policy.

If these people have chosen to be part of an organisation which is actively opposed to "multiculturalism," which my Concise Oxford defines as a condition "of or relating to or constituting several cultural or ethnic groups within a society," then I would be concerned, to say the least, if they were to be looking after my half-Chinese grandchildren.

Again with respect, I think we maybe need to know a little more before we can decide whether it's an "idiotic stunt" or not.

Accusing Jimmy Savile of being a groper would have been deemed an "idiotic viewpoint" a year ago.

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:47 PM

7. And opposing multiculturalism can mean "there should only be one culture, with no separation by

ancestral ethnicity". Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality and then the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, has said this, in a way:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/may/28/equality.raceintheuk

And UKIP's policy looks like it's against government promotion of it; which may mean no grants to any bodies that are for a specific ethnicity, but doesn't mean that supporters are actually against children (or adults) of other ethnicities. Indeed, support for multiculturalism would mean not placing non-white-British children with any white British foster parents, whatever their politics, since they would need to be placed with their own ethnicity so that they grow up in that 'culture'. Which then gets impossible, or ridiculously complicated, with anyone who can be called 'half-' something, like your grandchildren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:06 AM

10. As always, your comments are thoughtful and erudite and move my thinking on, Muriel.

However, my concern would be less with how these UKIP supporters feel about the minutiae of implementing their party's policy but primarily with the children and to what degree these people see them as part of "the other".

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:45 AM

14. 'Multi-culturalism' is a fact of life in the UK

but then it has been for centuries without any government or official policies to control or support it.

The truth is that identities are not fixed but mutate over time as history breaks down old groups and creates knew ones.

There was no such thing as Christian culture until the Ist century CE and no Muslim culture until the 6-7th century CE.

England and the English did not exist until the Anglo Saxon monarchs created it as part of their attempt to deal with Viking attacks in the 9th Century CE.

People also can have multiple shared identities at the same time (thus Oona King shares both an African American and a Jewish cultural background) a fact which some 'multiculturalist' thinking finds surprisingly hard to accept

The problem with apparently benign attempts by the authorities to promote cultural identity is that it soon winds up as a bureaucratic process that tries to shoe horn people into pre-determined categories that does not match the rather more fluid nature of identity. Worse if handled unsympathetically as appears to have happened in Rotherham it can easily degenerate into a kind of apartheid mentality where it is felt that 'separate development' for different groups is appropriate. It is no hard to see how this theory could be adapted by a truly racist political party for its own purposes if it got into power. There are too many parallels between this type of thinking with things which went on in South Africa in the 1950-60s and Germany in the 1930-40s for me to feel comfortable with it.

Ironically, true racism is most often seen when people actually try to shift the boundaries. Thus white America was quite happy for Nina Simone to sing blues and jazz but less happy to promote her love of Bach by allowing her to study classical music at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. Can't keep a good girl down though. She remained 'independently blue' until the end God Bless Her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:50 AM

2. I'm no fan of UKIP to put it very very mildly...

but I don't think that people should be screened for political party affiliation when fostering; unless obviously they are neo-Nazis or supporters of violent organizations, etc. (a) There are far too many kids in need of homes, and far too few suitable foster parents, to ban otherwise suitable ones for political views; (b) It sets a dangerous precedent. Do we want right-wing councils to intervene to prevent left-wingers from fostering children (I'm sure that certain people on our Oxfordshire County Council would love to do just that!)?

That being said: it's possible that we aren't hearing the full facts, and that the couple are unsuitable in other ways, or have been e.g. making racist stipulations about which children they'll foster. Quite often, the facts in such cases are reported selectively. But if it's accurately reported, then I do think this is going too far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:32 PM

4. At the risk of repeating myself ...

... the party with which these people have chosen to identify themselves believes that we should

“End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies”

What equivalent left-wing policies did you have in mind?

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:39 PM

8. Oh, any.

Supporting the right to contraception and/or abortion. Not supporting the latest war. Wanting to increase taxes on the rich. Sympathizing with those Workshy Scroungers who want to keep the Disability Living Allowance. Being Now or Having Ever Been a member of the Communist Party, or having once had tea with someone whose grandmother had been a member of the Communist Party 40 years ago. Etc.

To clarify: it isn't that I myself think that any or all of these views or actions are morally equivalent to being anti-multiculturalism and holding all Farage's other loonytunes views! Obviously, I don't, or I wouldn't be a left-winger! However, once the precedent is set, that one can reject people as foster parents because of political views, do you honestly think that the likes of Gove and Duncan-Smith and Theresa May; and such county council officials as my own lovely Keith Mitchell the Birther in Oxfordshire - and I'm sure other people here will have other examples - do you think that they will NOT use the precedent to ban left-wingers from fostering, and possibly from other forms of access to children?

Moreover: the point stands that there are not enough foster carers for all the children who need them. I'd choose the risk of a child being exposed to unpleasant political views over their being shunted about between different children's homes and temporary carers for several years. I know plenty of people whose parents have had stupid, intolerant or bigoted views on various issues, and who have nevertheless adopted wiser views themselves (and, unfortunately, occasionally the other way around). But prolonged institutionalization, or being passed like a parcel between different carers, usually leads to some permanent psychological damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:02 AM

9. With respect, I think we're losing the point of my original postings.

My issue isn't predominantly about UKIP or Rotherham Council or even the parents. It's about the children.

Like all of us, I know little or nothing here about the children but I'd warrant that their life journey up to this point has been pretty rocky and, if I was the decision-maker at Rotherham, I'd hope that - no, I know that - my priority would be to try to make the next bit as good as I possibly could. And I wouldn't have to read far down the UKIP manifesto for alarm bells to start ringing.

Yes, I have also known people whose parents had unpleasant views and grew up wiser. But I've known others who stayed pretty fucked-up. And they's arguably had a better start in life than these kids.

And this isn't just about passing on the views, is it? It's about their gut feelings about what these children are and what they represent to them.

As for the stability argument, when I taught school in Leicestershire, the nice local children's home seemed a wonderful refuge, especially given the pleasant and caring administrator with whom I shared many a coffee and a laugh and a warm anecdote.

Until the paedophile ring story broke, that is.

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:41 PM

5. It sets a VERY dangerous precedent

Last edited Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

I certainly don't think that a council in an area that isn't as tribally left-wing as Rotherham would have attempted a stunt like this.

I think Rotherham council need to look over the border at Doncaster, because that's the way their social services are heading if they don't sort themselves out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:17 PM

6. Channel 4 News reminded me that Cameron had interesting views on UKIP ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:09 PM

22. who the hell would volunteer to foster if the council is going to pull stuff like this

 

Its the same as the hoops for adoption why bother trying when its easier to just adopt from abroad. Sometimes the powers that be end up hurting the kids they are supposed to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:27 AM

11. Redfearn v United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights

may makes the Councils decision a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on European Rights

Ironically. for UKIP members, current EU treaties mean that ruling is binding on UK Courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1879965.stm

More work for my learned friends and more compensation being paid out of the public purse in due course I think.

Anyway the Council have gifted UKIP publicity that they could not hope to buy in the run up to next years local election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fedsron2us (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:35 AM

12. And what about those children?

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:13 AM

13. A question better directed at the Council rather than to this forum

The children, who I believe are from eastern Europe, have not been consulted as far as I can see.

I gather the family had seven years experience of fostering with no issues up until the time of this decision.

One would have thought that if the council had the welfare of children at heart it would want to hang onto such a valuable resource not piss them off.

I have no doubt the leaking of the story has been timed to coincide with the by election, particularly as the foster parents are supposed to be ex Labour voters but it has to be said this is not the first controversy involving Rotherham social services and Joyce Thacker.

Anyway liberty is indivisible. It can not just be applied to favoured groups with whom one happens to agree. Otherwise it is not liberty at all.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/index.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fedsron2us (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:43 AM

15. Exactly

Rotherham Council's social services are already at the centre of another major scandal that the far right is already exploiting.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2012/09/27/the-rotherham-grooming-case-shows-the-dangers-of-confusing-criminality-with-culture/

It's Joyce Thacker & Rotherham Council who have serious questions to answer here. Rotherham is a town with many problems, one of which is social services who've clearly lost sight of who they are meant to be helping in the first place.

Another major problem in Rotherham is that any old corrupt bastard can get onto the council as long as they are wearing a red rosette. The whole political culture there stinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:25 AM

16. I don't mean to be difficult but do you have a dog in the fight TiB?

When I was an elected member of a local authority (which was a "one party state" for four years - the voters did that, not us! - without any corruption whatsoever) people said some very unpleasant things about us, most of which had no truth in them whatsoever.

And I note that a lot of people are assuming that these people are giving these children a "warm and loving home" without any proof either way, so far as I can see.

Anyway, this has been an interesting strand and I will watch developments with interest. For the moment, my work here is done.

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:47 AM

18. It's local to me

I live not too far from Rotherham and have professional and personal links to the town.

As I've already said, Rotherham is a town with more then it's fair share of problems, many of which are due to economic decline (there's a reason why the Tories are loathed there) and some are due to the antics of the local Labour party. Please don't try and tell me that Rotherham Labour are cleaner then clean. The whole reason why we are having a by-election in Rotherham is because the previous MP was a crook.

I've avoided Rotherham this weekend in spite of the big rugby match between Rotherham Titans & Leeds Carnegie but no doubt we shall see if this story is a game-changer in the by election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:05 PM

19. I wouldn't presume to tell you anything, TiB ...

... because I don't know your patch at all.

But, if you'll pardon me for saying so, you tend to use very strong language and I sometimes wonder whether you allow your prejudices to cloud your judgement.

Does the fact that your ex-MP fiddled his expenses really mean that the local Social Services offices are wrong in removing Eastern European children from the care of people who don't actually think they should be in the country at all?

But, hey, you don't need to listen to me. Feel free to go on treating me with the contempt you feel I deserve.

And we shall see what we shall see.

Have a good evening.

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:27 PM

20. Happily, Dennis Macshane was never my MP

I live nearby, not in Rotherham itself. As much as I don't rate my current MP Natascha Engel I don't think she's anything like as bad as MacShane.

And I do think that a lot of political types do treat Rotherham with a great deal of contempt. The mainstream right-wing loathes Rotherham and assumes that everyone living there is some sort of ideologically impure scrounger, this means Labour have no real competition and Labour take the town for granted as a consequence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:32 PM

21. And nobody who cares about Rotherham tries to do anything about it?

Sad.

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fedsron2us (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:31 AM

17. Be that as it may, it looks like Mr. Baggy Trousers is doing his best to snatch failure ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread