Children removed from foster care because of political bigotry.

[InsaneApache]

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.

They were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100191182/rotherhams-stasi-have-handed-ukip-a-pr-victory-shame-they-had-to-tear-apart-a-foster-family-in-the-process/

*dunbfounded*

I know that the left is bigoted against any opposing ideology but this takes the biscuit.

[Fragony]

The true face behind that patronising smile

[Husar]

I'm totally outrage.

Obviously the whole labor party is trying to blackmail all of Britain!!!

[Fisherking]

Totalitarian :daisy:s every one of them.

[rory_20_uk]

God, I am so pleased I live in a democracy. where would I be where free speech can end in a lawsuit?

Thank goodness they preemptively acted to protect children based on no evidence whatsoever.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

I know that the left is bigoted against any opposing ideology but this takes the biscuit.

I know you see this as another salvo by leftists in their long running campaign to make you speak Russian and marry a man - however it does just seem to be some local idiocy.

[CrossLOPER]

I know you see this as another salvo by leftists in their long running campaign to make you speak Russian and marry a man - however it does just seem to be some local idiocy.
Can someone please explain this linkage between homosexuality and Stalinist society? I keep hearing it from Americans and I never understood it. Homosexuals did not have a good time under the regime of the CPSU.

[HoreTore]

50 bucks says this is yet another fantasy outrage story completely detached from reality. That would make it number 385734, I believe.

I'm betting the closest thing this article gets to the actual facts, is that the ukip-activity was noted as a detail in some document.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

50 bucks says this is yet another fantasy outrage story completely detached from reality. That would make it number 385734, I believe.

I'm betting the closest thing this article gets to the actual facts, is that the ukip-activity was noted as a detail in some document.

Sorry - the children were taken away because they are from immigrant families and the Council thinks UKIP are anti-immigration (they aren't).

[Beskar]

BNP - Yes
EDL - Perhaps
UKIP - What?

[HoreTore]

Sorry - the children were taken away because they are from immigrant families and the Council thinks UKIP are anti-immigration (they aren't).

The only evidence you have pointing in that direction is the words of the foster parents.

Jumping to conclusions a little too soon, aren't we?

This isn't even a case of word against word. So far, it's just one word.

[Sir Moody]

Sorry - the children were taken away because they are from immigrant families and the Council thinks UKIP are anti-immigration (they aren't).



End mass, uncontrolled immigration. UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a.


they certainly aren't Hard-line against immigration (ie saying we should kick them all out) but they are against it

primarily this is because they are against the EU and being a member of the EU allows EU state citizens to enter the country freely (and of course ours can leave freely) - leaving the EU would effectively make large numbers of Legal immigrants have to apply for Residency... would be a nightmare imo... then again I am a lefty and pro EU :rolleyes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The only evidence you have pointing in that direction is the words of the foster parents.

Jumping to conclusions a little too soon, aren't we?

This isn't even a case of word against word. So far, it's just one word.

No - that's a statement from the Council, as reported by the BBC. You lose.

[HoreTore]

No - that's a statement from the Council, as reported by the BBC. You lose.

What I saw in the article given was a statement by the council that they had been taken away temporarily, but not giving any reason as to why they had done it.

But if social services piblically announce their reasoning at a press conference or whatever, that's a scandal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What I saw in the article given was a statement by the council that they had been taken away temporarily, but not giving any reason as to why they had done it.

But if social services piblically announce their reasoning at a press conference or whatever, that's a scandal.

Have a read, there's even a clip on the page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

[HoreTore]

Have a read, there's even a clip on the page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

Yeah, they're going to investigate and get the facts...

I will await those facts before I conclude. I think you should do the same ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet - the woman from the Council, Joyce Thacker, has already stated that it's because the children a foriegn born (or she sees them that way) and UKIP is anti-immigration.

That's enough facts, really.

[Fragony]

It gets better apparently, the commision seems to have reluctantly decided that they can adopt kids despite of the fact that they aren't 100% sure of Labour, but only white ones.

[HoreTore]

And yet - the woman from the Council, Joyce Thacker, has already stated that it's because the children a foriegn born (or she sees them that way) and UKIP is anti-immigration.

That's enough facts, really.

Ah well, wrong decision made by stupid people then. Looks like it'll be sorted though.

I'm betting the world won't collapse...

[Kival]

I don't know. The situation doesn't seem to be so simply wrong.There is some logic in preventing children from immigrants to be raised by people who are strongly against immigration. How will they be raised? Will they learn to be ashamed to be foreigners? Will they learn at all to be Britisch or will the "Parents" tell them, they can never be home here?I don't know Ukip though: Are they only against new immigration, or do they belong to the right-wingers spreading stories about how all the immigrants are terrible monsters?

There is not only food and clothes which are relevant for children.

[InsaneApache]

It gets better apparently, the commision seems to have reluctantly decided that they can adopt kids despite of the fact that they aren't 100% sure of Labour, but only white ones.

Indeed. Racism of the worst kind.


I'm betting the world won't collapse...

Perhaps not but doesn't it bother you in the least that the children were taken away for political reasons? There was never any question that the kids wern't being looked after properly, only that their carers didn't vote the right way.

[Kival]

Perhaps not but doesn't it bother you in the least that the children were taken away for political reasons? There was never any question that the kids wern't being looked after properly, only that their carers didn't vote the right way.

As voting is confidential in GB as far as I know, it's not just about voting. It's about being actively involved in anti-immigration politics. Nobody sees how that could be problematic for raising children of foreign heritage? Really? Doesn't mean it is necessarily the right decision, but it isn't just arbitrary rascism or arbitrarily reducing rights of right-wingers.

[InsaneApache]

Good grief.

[Kival]

OKay, I read a bit about Ukip and it seems as if they at least claim to be culturalists and not racists. If that's true, then there is no reason not to allow them to grow children of foreign origin. I still think it's problematic but there would be no material reason for it then.

[Kadagar_AV]

First of all, a quick Googling show very weak links between Ukip and racism. Could someone who knows more try and be a bit objective on this part of the question.

Secondly, let's separate big political questions from how we interact with other people here. I am strongly against the Swedish immigration, but every person I taught, in schools or on the slopes, I have done my absolute utmost for. In my last mentor group I had this little Nubian princess, being ashamed of her heritage. I spent so many sleepless nights pondering how to strengthen her and her role in the class. Hard work, but it payed off. When I quit at that school, her father asked if I would work at some other school, and if so if she could transfer there.

I guess the good ol' racist Kadagar here hasn't exactly scarred the kid for life.

So, even IF Ukip is anti-immigration, it has no bearing on how their members act towards others. Heck, I had a friend who voted for the perceived "racist party" in Sweden just cause that was the only party who want out of the EU. Would that make him a bad foster father? :dizzy2:

[Kival]

As I said it depends. Some google-Fu seemed to show that Ukip is only anti-immigration without racist political views, other than the BNP. And this is really the important point. If they are only anti-immigration-politics, and anti-EU, there is no ground for that decision. Would they have clear links with racist thoughts (aka "Britain for the British" as the BNP), I would say the decision is correct. Also remember it wasn't just about voting but (active) political participation in the party.

[Kadagar_AV]

As I said it depends. Some google-Fu seemed to show that Ukip is only anti-immigration without racist political views, other than the BNP. And this is really the important point. If they are only anti-immigration-politics, and anti-EU, there is no ground for that decision. Would they have clear links with racist thoughts (aka "Britain for the British" as the BNP), I would say the decision is correct.

Sorry, I came off as brushing you off. We wrote our posts at the same time :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I said it depends. Some google-Fu seemed to show that Ukip is only anti-immigration without racist political views, other than the BNP. And this is really the important point. If they are only anti-immigration-politics, and anti-EU, there is no ground for that decision. Would they have clear links with racist thoughts (aka "Britain for the British" as the BNP), I would say the decision is correct. Also remember it wasn't just about voting but (active) political participation in the party.

UKIP isn't (as a party) anti-immigration, they're against our immigration policy being setby the EU - which is completely differet. Given that UKIP is mostly made up of Middle-Class Trories they're probably more pro-immigration in general than people on the Left in Britain, racism being primarily an affliction of the Left here.

[Kival]

racism being primarily an affliction of the Left here.

Really? Any sources or examples for that? Admittedly I do not know any Britisch leftist party (labour doesn't count, especially not after Blair). Which parties, who you would consider left-wing, are racist in Britain?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really? Any sources or examples for that? Admittedly I do not know any Britisch leftist party (labour doesn't count, especially not after Blair). Which parties, who you would consider left-wing, are racist in Britain?

Labour, the BNP, some Socialists...

People think the BNP's support comes from the Right, it doesn't - it come from disaffected hard-left Labour voters.

Take, for example, that famous anti-Semite Ken Livingstone.

[Kival]

Take, for example, that famous anti-Semite Ken Livingstone.

Hm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/mar/04/society.london

Really not sure what to think about that. I'll have a look at the BNP supporters though.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/mar/04/society.london

Really not sure what to think about that. I'll have a look at the BNP supporters though.

I think he was very clear, his views also corresponds with mine.

[Ironside]

So, even IF Ukip is anti-immigration, it has no bearing on how their members act towards others. Heck, I had a friend who voted for the perceived "racist party" in Sweden just cause that was the only party who want out of the EU. Would that make him a bad foster father? :dizzy2:

Being SD member would probably be enough for a surprise visit and a check-up that the children are being treated well, but bad foster parent by default, no. They aren't exactly clean from their racist past, so it's not something to simply ignore.

I don't think UKIP compares to that though.

[Sir Moody]

... BNP on the left? did we legalize pot already? their manifesto from 2010 was most certainly on the RIGHT of the spectrum

From furthest Right to Furthest Left we have the BNP, EDL, UKIP, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green Party

UKIP and the Conservatives are practically the same except for views on Europe, the EDL is border line racist (mostly they are anti Islam) and the BNP IS racist

Labour is a centralist party - they haven't been a member of the "left" since the creation of new Labour - they sit dead middle on the political spectrum

now in this case I do agree with PVC - political beliefs should not effect foster parenting unless said beliefs include racism - which UKIP's does not - it doesn't matter that UKIP is anti-immigration as long as the parents were looking after the children properly that is all that matters

[Furunculus]

First of all, a quick Googling show very weak links between Ukip and racism. Could someone who knows more try and be a bit objective on this part of the question.

apparently, i was ukip's rejection of multiculturalism that led joyce to remove the kids.

not liking their non acceptance of multiculturalism is 100% unacceptable.

i do not accept the normative use of the phrase:

wiki - "Multiculturalism relates to communities containing multiple cultures. The term is used in two broad ways, either descriptively or normatively.[1] As a descriptive term, it usually refers to the simple fact of cultural diversity: it is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometime at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighbourhoods, cities, or nations. As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalisation; in this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.”[2] Such ideologies or policies vary widely, including country to country,[3] ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/mar/04/society.london

Really not sure what to think about that. I'll have a look at the BNP supporters though.

I was thinking much more about his recent campaign - where he said Jews wouldn't vote for him, because they were all rich.

The Jewish vote, so far as it still exists, duly returned Boris as Mayor and mostly voted for Labour members of the Assembly.

My Cousin's fiancee is from a Jewish family and they are in now doubt about Mr Livingstone's views - made all the more shocking by the fact that he is part of a party led by the son of a Jewish-Marxist-Aetheist, which is about as much of a stereotype as you can get.

As to the BNP being a Right-Wing party, that's only true if you think Racism is a Right-Wing policy choice. The BNP plays race and class-politics, only the Left do that.

That is, incidentally, how you know Andrew Mitchell didn't use the word "Pleb" because the word "Pleb" is used by the New Rich, those who have money, to distinguish themselves from the same social class who don't. It isn't used by the Gentry or the Aristocracy - it's not an insult in their vocabulary.

[Sir Moody]

No I judge the BNP by their own policies not my own prejudices like you are - if you go and read the 2010 BNP manifesto you will find they are on the Right side of the Political spectrum for pretty much EVERY issue (except energy for some reason...) which ergo makes the a party on the Right side of the spectrum

as to the Left playing the race card - they do and it always makes me groan when they do but the BNP don't play the race card - that would suggest they are calling others racist... when they are the racists... :dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No I judge the BNP by their own policies not my own prejudices like you are - if you go and read the 2010 BNP manifesto you will find they are on the Right side of the Political spectrum for pretty much EVERY issue (except energy for some reason...) which ergo makes the a party on the Right side of the spectrum

as to the Left playing the race card - they do and it always makes me groan when they do but the BNP don't play the race card - that would suggest they are calling others racist... when they are the racists... :dizzy2:

They place race politics, dividing people into races and pitting them against each other - which is also what Labour does, except that they do it by creating a sense of victimhood in minorities rather than the majority.

[Kival]

They place race politics, dividing people into races and pitting them against each other - which is also what Labour does, except that they do it by creating a sense of victimhood in minorities rather than the majority.

Is this your only criteria to call them left?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is this your only criteria to call them left?

No.

[Kadagar_AV]

They place race politics, dividing people into races and pitting them against each other - which is also what Labour does, except that they do it by creating a sense of victimhood in minorities rather than the majority.

But isn't that what politics is? Rich vs poor, young vs old, men vs women, natives vs immigrants... The list goes on. To say that one of these factor isn't a factor isn't just stupid, it's easily falsifiable.

[rory_20_uk]

apparently, i was ukip's rejection of multiculturalism that led joyce to remove the kids.

not liking their non acceptance of multiculturalism is 100% unacceptable.

I am 100% against multiculturalism. We should have one culture and variants thereof. Others may well be tolerated, but there is definitely Primus Inter Pares.
Am I racist? Well, my son is mixed race, so I would argue no.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

I think that some UKIP members and/or voters probably are closet racists (David Cameron agrees with me, apparently). I imagine most are not, and at any rate, the mere membership should not disqualify the foster parents. If it were an openly racist organisation like the BNP it would be different obviously, but then again, I find it hard to believe an actual racist would take in non-white foster children.

Playing devils advocate, the decision may have had something to do with the nature of foster care. It's by definition temporary; sometimes the foster parents end up adopting the kid but that's not standard. The foster agency probably envisioned a permanent placement along the road in a household that's of the same cultural background (possibly their original family at some point) or at least one that lets the kids grow up according to his/her ancestral customs. The UKIP advocates monoculturalism and probably would have these kids eating fish & chips instead of falafel, which according to some is racist, and would have impeded the plan of letting these kids grow up according to their original culture.

Not that I care either way, culture is often stupid and at any rate has no rights or inherent value of it own, only individuals do. If these kids were fairly old (say 8 or beyond) then you could argue that placing them in a household of British chauvenists would be a culture shock and therefore detrimental to their development. One of the kids was a baby, but maybe (it's not clear from the article) the kids were all siblings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But isn't that what politics is? Rich vs poor, young vs old, men vs women, natives vs immigrants... The list goes on. To say that one of these factor isn't a factor isn't just stupid, it's easily falsifiable.

Modern politics has become this, but it doesn't have to be that way.

The idea that your political choices are inherently against someone is one of the most negative ideas to come out of the 19th Century, and I really do hold Marx responsible - he invented the idea of Class War, the belief that the rich are out to get the poor and therefore the poor should try to overthrow the rich.

Just look at the Tories in the UK - how often do they talk about Class, or race as a matter of opposition? Now look at Labour - they do, and it cost them a Bi-Election when they tried to paint the Conservative as a "Tory Toff" despite they themselves putting up the daughter of the dead incumbent as a candidate.

This is not the way it has to be - and if people realised that we'd all be a lot better off. Imagine if the Republicans and Democrats could have a sensible conversation about fiscal policy and government involvement is social care, which are really the only important places they disagree. They want the same things for America and Americans, they just can't agree implementation.

[Fragony]

I think that some UKIP members and/or voters probably are closet racists (David Cameron agrees with me, apparently). I imagine most are not, and at any rate, the mere membership should not disqualify the foster parents. If it were an openly racist organisation like the BNP it would be different obviously, but then again, I find it hard to believe an actual racist would take in non-white foster children.

Possibly but aren't we all in various degrees. UKIP is anti-EU and for some that equals racism as the EU is apparantly responsibe for peace in their nuggets. If these parents were BNP I would understand it, and with EDL at least frown. But UKIP, nah, decent lot.

[Brenus]

“I really do hold Marx responsible - he invented the idea of Class War, the belief that the rich are out to get the poor and therefore the poor should try to overthrow the rich.” Do you read Marx? Marx didn’t invent the Class War, he describe it. It was the time when the Army was sent against the Strikers and shoot at them.
It is not what he wrote. He said that in a society/factory, population have common goal but within this they have different interest that are in conflict.
I try to explain: My boss and I have the same interest in the factory success because it provides both of us with a living. But, then both of us want most of the money of it, so his interest is to pay me as low as he can, and mine is to have my salary as high as I can. So, in one hand we have to work together and on the other to oppose each other.
Then the fact comes that he has the upper hand on me, as he can fire me whenever he wants, regulated by laws tailored by him. So, I have a problem if I want to change these facts on my favours. If I want to achieve this, I have to take power/change the laws.
That is the description of facts and Societies, I don’t know a better analyse of human relationship within a society.

“Just look at the Tories in the UK - how often do they talk about Class, or race as a matter of opposition?” Are you joking? They don’t stop: Cut on all benefit for the unemployed, single parent, handicapped Persons, Pensioners, Emigrants, and cutting of the taxes for Riches. They don’t speak of the Class War, they do it. And they are winning with the help of the media they control that never speak of different approach.
And to make you easy, New Labour had the same policy, see the gift to banksters who should be in jail by in fact kept their bonuses (yes, the one who were supposed to be the best, reason why they were so highly paid).

About this subject: Can some body ranting on daily basis against immigration raise a child of immigrants? If on daily basis, a child heard that his/her parents are worthless (at least) or scums (when the foster Parents think the child is not listening), do you think that the child will feel love?
If the kids are racially abused in school and know that coming at home, the parents de facto agree with the abusers…?

[Fragony]

About this subject: Can some body ranting on daily basis against immigration raise a child of immigrants? If on daily basis, a child heard that his/her parents are worthless (at least) or scums (when the foster Parents think the child is not listening), do you think that the child will feel love?
If the kids are racially abused in school and know that coming at home, the parents de facto agree with the abusers…?

No, but people like that are well catered in other parties like the BNP, UKIP isn't like that, they are not anti-immigration but want more sensible policy. They are against the Lady Ashton's and Cecilia Maelströms (pun intended) of this world enforcing reckless immigration-policy. That has nothing to do with racism. Why would they foster kids with an immigrant background if they were racists? For labour being unsure of the EU and unlimited immigration is the same thing as racism, but that's quatch. This is a great example of 'hell hath no fury like a leftist doubted'.

[rory_20_uk]

Started well, Brenus. Tailed off into rather meaningless tub thumping which would bring a lump to the throat of the average intolerant bigot.

The monies paid off to especially handicapped persons and pensioners is increasingly vastly faster than inflation. It is unsustainable. No one is going to give us free money to do so.
Rather than address how to deal with this (media doesn't speak of a different approach... neither do you) we are off to the Bankers.

Call me old fashioned, but I thought we need to prove they broke a law before locking them up, or breached contract before failing to honour one. Or do legal niceties vanish when we are trying mob justice on a group of persons you don't like?

You seem to manage to jump between voting UKIP and someone who is unable to love a child. Again, the requirement for evidence appears to vanish when we are attacking a group you don't like. I imagine many foster parents view the real parents as worthless scum and hence why they do what they do to protect the innocent children.


~:smoking:

[Brenus]

“The monies paid off to especially handicapped persons and pensioners is increasingly vastly faster than inflation. It is unsustainable.” No need to repeat what the media are spreading. I know to read. I listen to radio and TV.
If you cut your income, of course you can’t afford. Cutting taxes for Richs and making laws allowing companies to pay no taxes in the countries they making money is part of how to do it. Then, (surprise surprise), the State has no more money. It is a pure engineered crisis. I saw it in eastern Countries in when they privatised their factories. You created the failure in cutting your profit, then blame the failure on the low income lowering the value of the Company, then sell to your friends.

“neither do you” Not the subject, but few hints: Tax the City at the same level than work. Close the “immoral” loopholes of taxes dodgers (legal and you make the law) and go really against taxes evaders…

“we need to prove they broke a law before locking them up, or breached contract before failing to honour one. Or do legal niceties vanish when we are trying mob justice on a group of persons you don't like?” I thought I pre-empted this in writing: “regulated by laws tailored by him”.
It is like if you play a game when the one who win made the rules where it is said he has to win, but, hey, that is the rules, and you can’t change it. It is good if you are the winner, but you can’t blame the looser to push for a change of the rules?

“Again, the requirement for evidence appears to vanish when we are attacking a group you don't like.” What? The UKIP is against multiculturalism and emigration (in THEIR manifest) and of course I see this for an outside view. Hey darling, you shouldn't be here because we don't want your parents to be here, but we love you. And, yes, the others kids are right to tell you you shouldn't be here. Nothing Personnel. But we love you. But...

I don’t attack a group, I ask a question, and you failed to answer in try a diversion attack on multiple fronts. But you still didn’t answer the question.

And by the way: “ I imagine many foster parents view the real parents as worthless scum and hence why they do what they do to protect the innocent children”
You answer to yourself: “ Again, the requirement for evidence appears to vanish”

[Ignoramus]

I can't understand how anyone can think that someone who believes multiculturalism should end and that there should be less immigration is incapable of loving someone(let alone a child) from a different ethnic background.

Dislike of Multiculturalism does not equal racism.

I dislike multiculturalism and the level of immigration here in Australia(which is less than UK if I'm not wrong), but have many good friends with people from various different (and non-European) backgrounds. What I dislike is the deliberate discouragement of new immigrants to adopt their new country's culture over time(i.e. assimilation) and active encouragement of them to retain their culture, language, customs, and in some circumstances - laws over their new country's.

[Fragony]

I can't understand how anyone can think that someone who believes multiculturalism should end and that there should be less immigration is incapable of loving someone(let alone a child) from a different ethnic background.

Dislike of Multiculturalism does not equal racism.

I dislike multiculturalism and the level of immigration here in Australia(which is less than UK if I'm not wrong), but have many good friends with people from various different (and non-European) backgrounds. What I dislike is the deliberate discouragement of new immigrants to adopt their new country's culture over time(i.e. assimilation) and active encouragement of them to retain their culture, language, customs, and in some circumstances - laws over their new country's.

Couldn't agree more. They can keep their culture I don't care, but the constant barrage of political-correct pushiness of the multicultural left will never cease to anger me. Everything needs to be multiculti. Get a dog or a cat if you want a pet.

Edit, nice example from the Dutch version of labour, not the party but their scientific burea. 'The Park of the Future'. Dogs shouldn't be allowed, and there should be fontains everywhere so feet can be washed. There should be patrols by civilian guards so people can be reminded of indecent behaviour. Congrats, you thought up a mini-Iran. Lunacy.

For Dutchies pdf is here, small mea culpa, it was not the scientific bureau of labour but the labour dominated MIF my bad

http://www.nieuwreligieuspeil.net/node/3790

Another gem, appartments that are funded with tax-money need some adjustments so women and men don't exist in the same living space, and some extra taps so feet can be washed.

Thank god these multiculti's are a dying breed here. Nobody even asked for it. A school in Rotterdam decided to not have a christmas tree, nobody asked for it. As a baffled muslim student said 'there is no need for that, the 'Hollanders' are going to hate us for it

Yeah but only the stupid ones, but they will

[rory_20_uk]

“The monies paid off to especially handicapped persons and pensioners is increasingly vastly faster than inflation. It is unsustainable.” No need to repeat what the media are spreading. I know to read. I listen to radio and TV.
If you cut your income, of course you can’t afford. Cutting taxes for Richs and making laws allowing companies to pay no taxes in the countries they making money is part of how to do it. Then, (surprise surprise), the State has no more money. It is a pure engineered crisis. I saw it in eastern Countries in when they privatised their factories. You created the failure in cutting your profit, then blame the failure on the low income lowering the value of the Company, then sell to your friends.

Perhaps don't act like you don't read or listen before trotting out the usual groups of "victims" without feeling the need to qualify.

Increasing income does not address the core fact that the rate of increase is growing a lot quicker than the increase in GDP. Unless you just cheerfully think increasing taxes will always work ad infinitum.
Using Russia as an example. Fantastic! What better than an observed case study to "prove" something.


“[“neither do you” Not the subject, but few hints: Tax the City at the same level than work. Close the “immoral” loopholes of taxes dodgers (legal and you make the law) and go really against taxes evaders…

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the situation with being able to offshore profits needs to be looked at by all developed states. Merely addressing one facet doesn't suddenly mean the supply side can be ignored.


“[“we need to prove they broke a law before locking them up, or breached contract before failing to honour one. Or do legal niceties vanish when we are trying mob justice on a group of persons you don't like?” I thought I pre-empted this in writing: “regulated by laws tailored by him”.
It is like if you play a game when the one who win made the rules where it is said he has to win, but, hey, that is the rules, and you can’t change it. It is good if you are the winner, but you can’t blame the looser to push for a change of the rules?

You didn't say push for a change in the rules. You pushed for either to ignore laws / mob justice or post-hoc laws where persons are tried on rules that didn't exist.


“[“Again, the requirement for evidence appears to vanish when we are attacking a group you don't like.” What? The UKIP is against multiculturalism and emigration (in THEIR manifest) and of course I see this for an outside view. Hey darling, you shouldn't be here because we don't want your parents to be here, but we love you. And, yes, the others kids are right to tell you you shouldn't be here. Nothing Personnel. But we love you. But...

I don’t attack a group, I ask a question, and you failed to answer in try a diversion attack on multiple fronts. But you still didn’t answer the question.

And by the way: “ I imagine many foster parents view the real parents as worthless scum and hence why they do what they do to protect the innocent children”
You answer to yourself: “ Again, the requirement for evidence appears to vanish”

You asked a loaded question. It was as balanced as "if minorities are stupid then who should have the vote?"
Any foster parents could be biased. The reasons for choosing these appears to be they might be as after all, people that vote that way are all guilty by association.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Racism is a form of stupidity. Demonstrably stupid people are probably a poor choice for fosterage.

Wanting to preserve and maintain the culture of which one is a part is not stupid at all. It is connected to survival. Calling for limits in immigration is an effort to preserve culture, or at least slow the pace of change within that culture.

A stance against immigration is not, ipso facto, a racist stance.

I believe Rory has handled the other aspects of contract and presumption of innocence adequately, and I second his points.

[Furunculus]

UKIP advocates monoculturalism and probably would have these kids eating fish & chips instead of falafel, which according to some is racist, and would have impeded the plan of letting these kids grow up according to their original culture.

And public policy is to discriminate based on the prejudices of those who preach identity politics?

The monopoly of transnational progressivism in the public sector is pernicious in the extreme given the tendency to use to the privilege to foist it upon all regardless of their acceptance:

“The children were from EU migrant backgrounds and Ukip has very clear statements on ending multiculturalism, which might be sensitive to these children.”

Not acceptable.

I do not consider legitimate the normative application of multiculturalism:

wiki - "Multiculturalism relates to communities containing multiple cultures. The term is used in two broad ways, either descriptively or normatively. As a descriptive term, it usually refers to the simple fact of cultural diversity: it is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometime at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighbourhoods, cities, or nations. As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalisation; in this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.” Such ideologies or policies vary widely, including country to country, ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to."

And I'll be damned if I am going to barred from public life for this alleged 'heresy'.

[Brenus]

“You pushed for either to ignore laws / mob justice or post-hoc laws where persons are tried on rules that didn't exist.” Did I say that? Where? I am for a Democratic Revolution by vote. Mob rules favoured always the one with biggest weapons and money… You misread what I wrote… Sorry…

“rules that didn't exist.” They choose to ignore the existing rules. If you sell on purpose a product you know is deficient (toxic assets) to a client, you break the rules to your client. They cheated and lied knowingly, but as they were sorry it was ok. But yes, they should been put in front of courts, and sentenced properly. But no investigation, nothing was even started either by New Labour or Conservatives… So, the rules of laws….

“You asked a loaded question.” Err, no. I asked if a person having decided that emigrants should not be allowed in England can raise properly children from emigrants without prejudice. I think it is a fair question. Let’s say that if the parents are ranting all the day against b**** f**** emigrants who come to take our jobs and abuse the jobless system and being lazy and at the same time having two jobs (yes, you can have both in the same newspaper), then be able to tell the kids they don’t speak neither of them or their parents, I want to be convince it is possible.

We had in UK few cases of horrible stories of abuses and the NHS and Social Services were rightly pointed out for their lack of actions. And now, because a poor anti-emigrants (but not racist at all) in charge of emigrants off-spring are denied to be in charge, horror and stupefaction!!! The Social Service is finally doing the job (not having POTENTIAL abuses) and noooooo, they should let the anti-emigrants (but not racist at all) raise err… emigrants.

A little bit like when hunters are raising pheasants, this story. If you are animal’s lovers, you will find this suspect, at least. Not saying that all hunters hunt pheasants, mind you (I do not want to have a prejudice against hunters)…

“Using Russia as an example.” It wasn’t Russia I had in mind, but it works as well. What? Don’ you approve the absolute lawful process of privatisation of Russian Industries? They made the rules and follow them. I though it is how you like things… Because it is exactly what our people are doing: You make a Service impossible to manage in cutting staff and budget (but in keeping all the duties). It becomes inefficient. You blame the System to be inefficient. You pretend that Private Sector is more efficient. You make huge media campaigns. Wait. Then sell to your friends. Services are still not efficient but at least some people made money of it… And the best part: It still cost a lot to the tax-payers, because now, you have to give to the shareholders… So, yes, thanks to Russia that understood the rules of capitalism and the powers of a good self-organised and ruled oligarchy.

“Unless you just cheerfully think increasing taxes will always work ad infinitum.” No, I don’t do this. However, you seem to think that to increase profit ad infinitum is fine.
No, I think that you should have a fair system, when the richest contribute more, and where the companies making money in a country pay taxes in this country. Not too complex and difficult. And if the riches want to go, if they keep the UK citizenship, as they will still be under protection of the UK diplomacy, Armed Forces and etc, they will have still to pay the taxes (minus what they pay in the country where they live). That is actually, I was told, the USA system. And it is fair.
Now, they can decide they had enough to be UK citizen, well, they can still pay their taxes, then change Nationality and becoming a citizen of the Popular Republic of China.

[Fragony]

“You asked a loaded question.” Err, no. I asked if a person having decided that emigrants should not be allowed in England can raise properly children from emigrants without prejudice. I think it is a fair question. Let’s say that if the parents are ranting all the day against b**** f**** emigrants who come to take our jobs and abuse the jobless system and being lazy and at the same time having two jobs (yes, you can have both in the same newspaper), then be able to tell the kids they don’t speak neither of them or their parents, I want to be convince it is possible.

Why do you want to be convinced, your convinction is clear as day.

[Kralizec]

And public policy is to discriminate based on the prejudices of those who preach identity politics?

The monopoly of transnational progressivism in the public sector is pernicious in the extreme given the tendency to use to the privilege to foist it upon all regardless of their acceptance:

“The children were from EU migrant backgrounds and Ukip has very clear statements on ending multiculturalism, which might be sensitive to these children.”

Not acceptable.

I do not consider legitimate the normative application of multiculturalism:

wiki - "Multiculturalism relates to communities containing multiple cultures. The term is used in two broad ways, either descriptively or normatively. As a descriptive term, it usually refers to the simple fact of cultural diversity: it is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometime at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighbourhoods, cities, or nations. As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalisation; in this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.” Such ideologies or policies vary widely, including country to country, ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to."

And I'll be damned if I am going to barred from public life for this alleged 'heresy'.

I'll reiterate that I think culture is often stupid and has no inherent value, only individual people do. I'm certainly not a multiculturalist.

However, two points:

A) falafal is not equal to fish & chips, it's better
B) there's the question what's best for the kids. Let's say we have a hypothetical family of salafist muslims that falls apart, and the kids need foster parents. The kids are all 7 years or older and have been raised as strongly devout muslims. As much as I dislike salafist values, it would be an extremely bad idea to put them in the care of a British couple who are inconsiderate of the cultural difference, especially since foster care is an intermediate solution. It would be much better to place them with a moderate muslim couple.

That said, apparently the kids are of European extraction so the point is probably moot in this case. If they can survive British cuisine then any other cultural differences should be smooth sailing. Going by what the Telegraph writes about it the decision was based entirely on the mere membership of a political party (one I dislike, but which can't be said to be racist) and therefore wrong.

[Brenus]

"Why do you want to be convinced, your convinction is clear as day." Wrong!!! At first I found this appalling, discrimination for Political Affiliation... Where does it stop? Then I was listening to a Radio Programme on L.B.C. (James O'Brien) and one "mixed-race" woman intervened on this subject. And her story was being raised by a "racist" grand-mother, and the difficulties to hear what a grand-mother (who loved her) was saying about people like her when conversation between adults. And it was not a nice feeling...
So, I started to think about it... And I still don't have the answer.
But you do, obviously....

[rory_20_uk]

“You pushed for either to ignore laws / mob justice or post-hoc laws where persons are tried on rules that didn't exist.” Did I say that? Where? I am for a Democratic Revolution by vote. Mob rules favoured always the one with biggest weapons and money… You misread what I wrote… Sorry…

Fair enough.


“rules that didn't exist.” They choose to ignore the existing rules. If you sell on purpose a product you know is deficient (toxic assets) to a client, you break the rules to your client. They cheated and lied knowingly, but as they were sorry it was ok. But yes, they should been put in front of courts, and sentenced properly. But no investigation, nothing was even started either by New Labour or Conservatives… So, the rules of laws….

And they all knew that this was the case? Those who traded based upon the rating agencies were supposed to disregard the ratings? Most bankers / traders followed the rules, as most were far too busy to worry about who sert the prices. Their job is to trade based upon them.
Governments seemed happy that the housing market was buoyant in e.g. Ireland and Spain. Money was freely lent to government projects such as a new airport that can take A380s (something Heathrow can't do) and since completing no planes have landed. Vast numbers of new houses in Ireland. Who was supposed to want them? Was the population due to double?


“You asked a loaded question.” Err, no. I asked if a person having decided that emigrants should not be allowed in England can raise properly children from emigrants without prejudice. I think it is a fair question. Let’s say that if the parents are ranting all the day against b**** f**** emigrants who come to take our jobs and abuse the jobless system and being lazy and at the same time having two jobs (yes, you can have both in the same newspaper), then be able to tell the kids they don’t speak neither of them or their parents, I want to be convince it is possible.

You do think it is a fair question. My question was "is there any evidence whatsoever that these persons were unfit to foster?"


We had in UK few cases of horrible stories of abuses and the NHS and Social Services were rightly pointed out for their lack of actions. And now, because a poor anti-emigrants (but not racist at all) in charge of emigrants off-spring are denied to be in charge, horror and stupefaction!!! The Social Service is finally doing the job (not having POTENTIAL abuses) and noooooo, they should let the anti-emigrants (but not racist at all) raise err… emigrants.

There is a gulf of difference between not investigating and then not acting on evidence gained and acting based upon the thought that "that sort" will do something. Odd how descriminating on colour would be dreadful, but you'll defend to the hilt descriminating on those who vote the wrong way. If anyone dared mention relative rates of crime in different ethnic groups you'd squeal about selection bias, police bias etc. But to base something on even less in this case is A-OK.


“Using Russia as an example.” It wasn’t Russia I had in mind, but it works as well. What? Don’ you approve the absolute lawful process of privatisation of Russian Industries? They made the rules and follow them. I though it is how you like things… Because it is exactly what our people are doing: You make a Service impossible to manage in cutting staff and budget (but in keeping all the duties). It becomes inefficient. You blame the System to be inefficient. You pretend that Private Sector is more efficient. You make huge media campaigns. Wait. Then sell to your friends. Services are still not efficient but at least some people made money of it… And the best part: It still cost a lot to the tax-payers, because now, you have to give to the shareholders… So, yes, thanks to Russia that understood the rules of capitalism and the powers of a good self-organised and ruled oligarchy.

And Russia has always been known as a bastion of law and order... Outside of the ex-USSR, any examples? The NHS is having its budget brutally cut back to pre-2008 levels! The monsters!
The NHS managed to spend 12 billion on a computer system that didn't work. Google started out of a garage. There are probably thousands of companies or ideas that were similar that failed. The State so often backs one horse and wonders why nothing happens.
There was such a fuss about GP contracts as the Civil Service set the bar expecting 60% achievement. Yes, the Civil Service thought that 60% was a decent bar to hit. To me that is the story that is not told - Whitehall operates on such abysmal levels. When GPs hit on average 98% they got loads of money. The greedy b*****ds.


“Unless you just cheerfully think increasing taxes will always work ad infinitum.” No, I don’t do this. However, you seem to think that to increase profit ad infinitum is fine.
No, I think that you should have a fair system, when the richest contribute more, and where the companies making money in a country pay taxes in this country. Not too complex and difficult. And if the riches want to go, if they keep the UK citizenship, as they will still be under protection of the UK diplomacy, Armed Forces and etc, they will have still to pay the taxes (minus what they pay in the country where they live). That is actually, I was told, the USA system. And it is fair.
Now, they can decide they had enough to be UK citizen, well, they can still pay their taxes, then change Nationality and becoming a citizen of the Popular Republic of China.

I seem to think ad infinitum profits is fine... Erm, except that this doesn't happen, but debt levels can do.
You are aware of how companies move profits offshore in the USA? It isn't too complex... and it doesn't work that well.
The rich pay vastly more as an absolute number. Some people think that they should always pay more as a percentage of total earnings, and not just on purchases.
Subjects going wherever and getting full protection? Not possible.

~:smoking:

[caravel]

People think the BNP's support comes from the Right, it doesn't - it come from disaffected hard-left Labour voters.
In the past I've worked with a few people who voted for the BNP and none were former "hard-left Labour voters"... The person who votes for the BNP is usually just a typical racist bigot from a council estate/deprived area and tend to be those who previously voted Tory, did not vote at all, or alternated between all the parties. In most cases they understand little else of the BNP's policies - they simply want to stop immigrants coming in - and if possible deport as many of those already here as possible. Left/right doesn't come into it - as they rarely understand these concepts.

[Brenus]

“My question was "is there any evidence whatsoever that these persons were unfit to foster?” I don’t know. But some Social Services might think it was. And they are hammered for this because they are doing their job.
“Odd how descriminating on colour would be dreadful, but you'll defend to the hilt descriminating on those who vote the wrong way.” Funny you are saying this. I defend nothing.
You try desperately to show me as an extremist, knife (knives) in the month who dream to take the money from the poor riches. A bad leftist guilty on anti-white racism, sapping the Western Society… In short, a good Bolshevik you like to hate. Sorry to disappoint you, I don’t want to. But, yes, I question the fact that an anti-emigrates will give a proper care to children of emigration. But I can understand you are sure that they can.

“If anyone dared mention relative rates of crime in different ethnic groups you'd squeal about selection bias, police bias etc. But to base something on even less in this case is A-OK.” Er, when I did this? I suppose you are carried by your bad feeling.

“Outside of the ex-USSR, any examples?”: Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary and the list is long, but I think it will be enough. But you will probably dismiss them as they are not from our world. Will you?

“The NHS is having its budget brutally cut back to pre-2008 levels! The monsters!” I knew you come with this. I was thinking of the Railways, model of the Private Sector Efficiency by the way… Smile, you are on camera…:yes:

“It isn't too complex... and it doesn't work that well.” Agree, because lack of political will. And common shared interest…

“People think the BNP's support comes from the Right, it doesn't - it come from disaffected hard-left Labour voters.” Well written legend based on no evidence. It was served during the French Elections as well. There were always workers voting from the Conservatives, mostly for ant-EU and emigration reasons. They shift to the extreme right when the softer Conservative didn’t give them what they wanted…

[Greyblades]

Remember the good old days when everone used quotes and bolded lettering everywhere was considered stupid.
yup.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“I really do hold Marx responsible - he invented the idea of Class War, the belief that the rich are out to get the poor and therefore the poor should try to overthrow the rich.” Do you read Marx? Marx didn’t invent the Class War, he describe it. It was the time when the Army was sent against the Strikers and shoot at them.
It is not what he wrote. He said that in a society/factory, population have common goal but within this they have different interest that are in conflict.
I try to explain: My boss and I have the same interest in the factory success because it provides both of us with a living. But, then both of us want most of the money of it, so his interest is to pay me as low as he can, and mine is to have my salary as high as I can. So, in one hand we have to work together and on the other to oppose each other.
Then the fact comes that he has the upper hand on me, as he can fire me whenever he wants, regulated by laws tailored by him. So, I have a problem if I want to change these facts on my favours. If I want to achieve this, I have to take power/change the laws.
That is the description of facts and Societies, I don’t know a better analyse of human relationship within a society.

This is exactly the stupidity I am describing - you don't have to be a bastard and neither does your boss. Fair recompense for your labour is the amount which you can be paid without actually endangering the financial health of your company - there is no conflict of interest. Marx described a particular point in history and then read it back into the past. By creating a narrative of oppression/revolution he drove that narrative forward into the future.

A lot of people have decried Julian Fellows for writing Downton Abbey because they don't lik the idea that the Upper Class see themselves as providing employment paternalistically rather than crushing the poor beneath they Court-Slippers.

However, anyone who has met an actual aristocrat, or listened to HM Queen or HRH the Prince of Wales will see they really do think like that.


“Just look at the Tories in the UK - how often do they talk about Class, or race as a matter of opposition?” Are you joking? They don’t stop: Cut on all benefit for the unemployed, single parent, handicapped Persons, Pensioners, Emigrants, and cutting of the taxes for Riches. They don’t speak of the Class War, they do it. And they are winning with the help of the media they control that never speak of different approach.
And to make you easy, New Labour had the same policy, see the gift to banksters who should be in jail by in fact kept their bonuses (yes, the one who were supposed to be the best, reason why they were so highly paid).

About this subject: Can some body ranting on daily basis against immigration raise a child of immigrants? If on daily basis, a child heard that his/her parents are worthless (at least) or scums (when the foster Parents think the child is not listening), do you think that the child will feel love?
If the kids are racially abused in school and know that coming at home, the parents de facto agree with the abusers…?

None of this is about class - being on benefits is not a class issue - I was on benefits earlier this year, and I'm entirely middle class and a habitual Conservative voter.

I supported a cut in benefits even when I was on them - you cannot have a system where whole families are supported by the state across generations.

[rory_20_uk]

“My question was "is there any evidence whatsoever that these persons were unfit to foster?” I don’t know. But some Social Services might think it was. And they are hammered for this because they are doing their job.
“Odd how descriminating on colour would be dreadful, but you'll defend to the hilt descriminating on those who vote the wrong way.” Funny you are saying this. I defend nothing.

You don't defend the rights of minorities to be stopped and searched based on their colour? OK.


But, yes, I question the fact that an anti-emigrates will give a proper care to children of emigration. But I can understand you are sure that they can.

Except I never said that. I thought we should rely on the rule of law, and if they are guilty they are charged appropriately, not pre judged for thought crimes.



"f anyone dared mention relative rates of crime in different ethnic groups you'd squeal about selection bias, police bias etc. But to base something on even less in this case is A-OK.” Er, when I did this? I suppose you are carried by your bad feeling.

At the risk of being repetative, by "questioning" their ability and viewing removing the children as a good idea. Perhaps I wrongly assumed you have a problem with the counter ex


“Outside of the ex-USSR, any examples?”: Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary and the list is long, but I think it will be enough. But you will probably dismiss them as they are not from our world. Will you?

Blast, you got me there! I can't state that they have little in common with the UK. I accept that there are many corrupt countries in the world. I still fail to see any relevance.


“The NHS is having its budget brutally cut back to pre-2008 levels! The monsters!” I knew you come with this. I was thinking of the Railways, model of the Private Sector Efficiency by the way… Smile, you are on camera…:yes:

Oh, the railways... The privately held companies that were pushed into Nationalisation. They worked for, was it 50 years? Longer? We then managed to have coal instead of upgrading to electric like most other places although that was the cheaper long term methold.

Instead of dividing them into pre-nationalisation units, they were either part sold or leased to private companies.

Great example. Where the state forced it to be privatised, then sold it off in nonsensical chunks:

Combine routes? Not allowed by the state - different areas are operated by different countries. And of course the rails are run by someone else. And the stations. Integrated approaches are so silly.
Long term investment? 14 year lease of assets so you can and take the risk.
Competant process of tendering? No - it takes a private company to ask for Judicial intervention for the State to admit it screwed up the numbers - they accepted pie in the sky figures - again - without appearing to be able to review. Of course, they are used to this - look at HS2 and the massive assumptions that are made to make it workable on paper.

How many million did they have to give the rail companies for the tendering mess?


“It isn't too complex... and it doesn't work that well.” Agree, because lack of political will. And common shared interest…

I thought you just gave this as a great example of how well it worked...?

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

“Blast, you got me there! I can't state that they have little in common with the UK. I accept that there are many corrupt countries in the world. I still fail to see any relevance.” Right. France will be OK, or it is just the Frog’s Country? E.D.F? Good enough or it is not the UK?

And UK is considered (outside of UK of course), as one of the most corrupted Countries by the way, the City of London as a Laundry Machine for Drugs Dealer’s money… I think you can find few reports and newspapers articles on this on internet.

“How many million did they have to give the rail companies for the tendering mess?” Agree.
That is a great failure in the Privatisation Process. Even you can’t deny this cost wouldn’t happen if the Railways were nationalized. No, I am sure you will deny it…
And the fact that privatisation was badly done is a stone for my wall. Yes, all that was making profit was sold to shares holders who just pocket the money, and the rest is paid by us. There is no one week I don’t heard that “they are sorry for the inconvenience” or “this destination has been cancelled”. So what you are saying is the incompetence of the Private Sector is match with the incompetence of the UK Government: We agree.

“I thought you just gave this as a great example of how well it worked...?” You assume and put a lot of world in my mouth. I show this as potential path to follow, and I told the origin not to be accused of being a Marxism-Leninism hard-core follower. Well, I will be any way.

“At the risk of being repetative, by "questioning" their ability and viewing removing the children as a good idea.” At risk to be repetitive, you were supposed to explain this:” If anyone dared mention relative rates of crime in different ethnic groups you'd squeal about selection bias, police bias etc. But to base something on even less in this case is A-OK.” And you obviously can’t because I never said or wrote it. That was what you extrapolate from what you supposed to be my political affiliation (which is Left, it is not a secret).

“You don't defend the rights of minorities to be stopped and searched based on their colour?” What? Of course I do, if the only reason to be stopped and searched is because their colour. But is you have a good reason to be suspicious (like Anti-emigrants who want to raise Emigrants children –sorry, the string was too big not to be seen, try again) you might have to do it. To look in the Catholic minority for Muslim Extremist would be silly, wouldn’t it?~:)

“I thought we should rely on the rule of law, and if they are guilty they are charged appropriately, not pre judged for thought crimes” I don’t think they were put on trial, were they? The Social Services took a principal of caution (perhaps over-caution) and no charges were put on the parents. So, the Law is followed and respected. The Authority by the Law is the Social Services. And it is in UK, so this time is a proper country.:shrug:

“None of this is about class - being on benefits is not a class issue - I was on benefits earlier this year, and I'm entirely middle class and a habitual Conservative voter.” Of course it is. Give one example where the upper classes will suffer of the cuts? One. And I say “suffer”, where they will have to cut on food, or heating, or having to sell one Yatch…. I am as well a middle class, and I am actually on the JSA. I paid all the taxes, full speed, all the time. Not complaining for myself, I will survive. But I can see what this Government (and its predecessor) is doing. They are the negative Robin Hood. They take from the Poor to give to the Rich. They are implementing a policy for ideological agenda, and the joy of some conservative M.P. wanting more cut is, well, illustrating and a learning curve.

“I supported a cut in benefits even when I was on them - you cannot have a system where whole families are supported by the state across generations.” Well, up to you. And I agree the system is not sustainable. So we have to change the system. By the way, the actual system (that doesn’t work) is this kind of Capitalism.

“This is exactly the stupidity I am describing - you don't have to be a bastard and neither does your boss”: Well, in which world do you live? Because I just come out of my research on the Jobs Centre: some company are now offering salary in London for £ 12,000.00.
Cost to travel to London: £ 4,000.00
Where the stupidity in the description? It is a fair and real description of today’s reality.
I apply for a job for £ 15,000.00 yesterday (local so no travel cost). It is less than what I was paid 8 years ago, or even last year. Don’t tell me there is no War Class. And yes, the Upper Classes are winning it (I applied for the job).

“Fair recompense for your labour is the amount which you can be paid without actually endangering the financial health of your company” And who determine what is fair? Before or after bonuses and the shareholders package are paid?

[HoreTore]

Perhaps not but doesn't it bother you in the least that the children were taken away for political reasons?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion....?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brennus - it mystifies me that you use such bad grammar as a professional Frenchman in the UK. I can only assume it's deliberate to make your posts difficult to answer - rather life your refusal to use quotes.

In answer to your question - fair is fair. The company won't bear huge bonuses any more than high wages.

My point was that the reason it is like this is that people believe this is how it will be - fatalism is a bit part of what is destroying our economies. You don't need to pay big money to get good people - you just have to offer them something of value.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How on earth did you come to that conclusion....?

He read the coverage.

[HoreTore]

He read the coverage.

I was referring to the "doesn't it bother you"-part.

[Brenus]

“you use such bad grammar as a professional Frenchman in the UK”: I think faster than I write, so words "hit" each other… I should take more time to answer…:shame:

[Vladimir]

“you use such bad grammar as a professional Frenchman in the UK”: I think faster than I write, so words "hit" each other… I should take more time to answer…:shame:

I thought he was using English irony by inserting a typo as he chided your grammar. I thought it was funny. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I thought he was using English irony by inserting a typo as he chided your grammar. I thought it was funny. :shrug:

That's actually because I'm losing the feeling in my fingers due to degenerating joints, it's getting harder and harder to catch all the typos.

[Fragony]

That's actually because I'm losing the feeling in my fingers due to degenerating joints, it's getting harder and harder to catch all the typos.

Got reuma? Sucks if so. Lost feeling of one of my fingers as it got cutt of my hand, and it sucks.

[InsaneApache]

UKIP did well in the by-elections.

Who's a swivel-eyed looney now Dave and Nick?

Talk about out of touch.

[gaelic cowboy]

UKIP did well in the by-elections.

Who's a swivel-eyed looney now Dave and Nick?

Talk about out of touch.

I wouldnt read too much in it to be honest IA sure governments and especially coalitions tend to lose by-elections anyway.

[Idaho]

What a surprise. Turns out that UKIP were just a detail in a more complex case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed

Most of these kind of "political correctness gone mad" type stories turn out to be bs .

[Fragony]

Doesn't sound very credible to me, they have had plenty of children in their care before, and since when aren't they supposed to,learn English

[Idaho]

To be fair Fragony, you are in a wibbly wobbly world of your own when it comes to judging the credible from the incredible.

[Fragony]

To be fair Fragony, you are in a wibbly wobbly world of your own when it comes to judging the credible from the incredible.

Possibly, but how likely is the language thing. Normally not speaking the language is the exact reason for intervention. I am calling a bit of bull here, I will graciously accept defeat if I got it wrong.

[Idaho]

It sounds like a family with lots of issues/accusations of possible abuse and/or neglect, who want their child back and have pushed every possible angle in the courts. The courts have judged the case on numerous reasons, and UKIP have cherry picked one strand from the complex web to make a political point.

[Fragony]

They have been foster parents for over 30 years, I think it's more likely that destroying their reputation is more easy after the shitstorm this caused. Bad call from a stupid person at first probably, and probably not representative, but it probably is exactly what it looks like.

[HoreTore]

What a surprise. Turns out that UKIP were just a detail in a more complex case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed

Most of these kind of "political correctness gone mad" type stories turn out to be bs .

And the effectiveness of these cases in creating a belief that "evil leftist gubmintz will eat your babies" is demonstrated by Frags' posts.

These things never happen, but such bs has created a belief that they do. On a regular basis. Madness.

[InsaneApache]

But sources close to the case have told the Guardian there were multiple legal and social reasons why the council wanted to ensure the children be placed with foster parents who spoke their own eastern European language.

Sounds like the usual covering their backs from the local social services to me. In effect, bullshit.

[Fragony]

Sounds like the usual covering their backs from the local social services to me. In effect, bullshit.

Ya, a little too busted

[HoreTore]

Sounds like the usual covering their backs from the local social services to me. In effect, bullshit.

Look here now children. This is a wonderful specimen of the specie Politicalus Fanticae Animalius. See how he builds his nest with tabloid newspaper clippings, decorated with printed blog rants? Beautiful, isn't it? It's feeding time soon, then we can watch as the zookeepers feed him shocking articles. He'll only eat the headlines though, they don't eat the articles themselves, that would likely upset their stomachs.

[Fragony]

Look here now children. This is a wonderful specimen of the specie Politicalus Fanticae Animalius. See how he builds his nest with tabloid newspaper clippings, decorated with printed blog rants? Beautiful, isn't it? It's feeding time soon, then we can watch as the zookeepers feed him shocking articles. He'll only eat the headlines though, they don't eat the articles themselves, that would likely upset their stomachs.

Has all been comfirmed sadly, the usual psychological analyses if you aren't 100% sure is kinda off.

[Kralizec]

Playing devils advocate, the decision may have had something to do with the nature of foster care. It's by definition temporary; sometimes the foster parents end up adopting the kid but that's not standard. The foster agency probably envisioned a permanent placement along the road in a household that's of the same cultural background (possibly their original family at some point) or at least one that lets the kids grow up according to his/her ancestral customs. The UKIP advocates monoculturalism and probably would have these kids eating fish & chips instead of falafel, which according to some is racist, and would have impeded the plan of letting these kids grow up according to their original culture.

As it turns out this good man was 100% correct. We need to give him an award or somethign.

[Fragony]

As it turns out this good man was 100% correct. We need to give him an award or somethign.

Here's a very special 'it's exactly the same thing' balloon

:balloon: