Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:19 pm  

Unfortunately Social Services seem to be run by idiots these days.

[Wanderer]

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:38 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Seen someone from Rotherham Council on TV trying to defend this.

Attempting to defend the indefensible. Shocking stuff and some people need to take a serious look at their decision making process.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:52 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Apparently the family did not meet the 'cultural and ethnic needs of the children' because they were members of a political party that 'opposed multiculturalism'.

I thought multi-culturalism had been deemed a failed experiment? What century is Rotherham operating in?

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:55 pm  

People can have genuine concerns about immigration, it does not mean they are racist or want repatriation. Unfortunately, if you make your concerns public you seem to be demonised for it. There are many an immigrant from various countries who have concerns as well, the simple fact is we cannot have unchecked immigration as some would like and having a rational view that does not conform to some left wing ideologist social worker should be no bar to being a Foster carer.

I hope this couple sue the booty off these morons.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:59 pm  

Multiculturalism is widely acknowledged to have failed. Except, perhaps, in the pages of the Guardian.

The fact that Rotherham Social Services are still banging on about it shows how out of touch they are.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:04 pm  

rover49 wrote:

People can have genuine concerns about immigration, it does not mean they are racist or want repatriation. Unfortunately, if you make your concerns public you seem to be demonised for it. There are many an immigrant from various countries who have concerns as well, the simple fact is we cannot have unchecked immigration as some would like and having a rational view that does not conform to some left wing ideologist social worker should be no bar to being a Foster carer.

I hope this couple sue the booty off these morons.

I don't know much about care proceedings. But I have read some suggestion that there could be some care proceedings in the courts next week, and the council may get torn a new one.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:12 pm  

rover49 wrote:

People can have genuine concerns about immigration, it does not mean they are racist or want repatriation. Unfortunately, if you make your concerns public you seem to be demonised for it. There are many an immigrant from various countries who have concerns as well, the simple fact is we cannot have unchecked immigration as some would like and having a rational view that does not conform to some left wing ideologist social worker should be no bar to being a Foster carer.

I hope this couple sue the booty off these morons.

Good post.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:44 pm  

There are of course, as expected, football supporter style politics being played out over the issue now with Gove jumping into the fray quoting "indefensible" and "ridiculous", because of course Rotherham Council is Labour controlled (apparently).

But a genuine question - how much influence do councillors of any persuasion have on the various professional departments that work in full time jobs for a council ?

They can set budgets and order that the streets are swept and lightbulbs changed, but do they have any influence at all over adoption policies and if not then why is this deemed to be a political issue and not a mistaken judgement that will benefit from an appeals process and a righting of mistakes or policies ?

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:50 pm  

A couple of general points: social workers usually get the flack for anything, but they're frequently snowed under with paperwork (not by their design or desire) and not the only ones involved in cases. So for instance, in the Baby P case, it was not social workers who wouldn't remove him from his family, but the legal team that wouldn't let social workers remove him. Unfortunately, for most of the media in this country, social workers are just a target to demean, which equally gets the kneejerkers going.

Gove is a buffoon. Only a couple of weeks ago, he was making grandiose and sweeping demands that far more children be removed into council care. His gob moves before his brain cell kicks into action.

On the surface, this looks like an utterly idiotic decision. Via social media, however, I've seen comments that there was 'previous' involved. So I'm trying to find more detail before commenting on the specifics.

Re: UKIP Fosterers : Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:59 pm  

Mintball wrote:

On the surface, this looks like an utterly idiotic decision. Via social media, however, I've seen comments that there was 'previous' involved. So I'm trying to find more detail before commenting on the specifics.

Ahhhh, trial by social media. Where everyone is a kiddie fiddler until proven otherwise.