Of course they have, they will all be running as fast as they can to distance themselves from the story rather than (for instance) asking a reporter for the full facts when they ring for a soundbite.

"What do you think of this situation >"
"I don't know, you're the first one to tell me about it, what facts have you got"
"None yet"
"Well lets both go away and let the judiciary deal with it then eh ?"

Common sense politics, it'll never catch on while people want instant reaction news.

You really believe this clap trap?

So a host of kids should go without a potential foster parent because they don't embrace multi-culturism to the hilt!!

No, it was potentially a bit more complicated than that.

The kids themselves were from immigrant parents.

In a purely hypothetical case (because the truth has not outed yet), would you place the children of immigrants into a foster home where (hypothetically) the foster parents are opposed to immigration, would that not make a mockery of the whole fostering system that no regard is made to placing children into homes of at the least "neutral" beliefs and culture if you can't make a better match - should foster parents be permitted to express and influence children in their care towards any political, religious or cultural beliefs when those children then have to return to their natural parents at some point, short term or long term ?

UKIP are not opposed to immigration though, they just want selective immigration, ie intelligent worth while types, you know, your doctors and engineers.

The are not anti europe, they are anti controlled by europe, Farage wants trade agreements, he just doesn't see the point in everything else and he believes in self governance.

They are nothing like the BNP or EDL, seems like more of the usual 'if you go against anything left wing you're a racist or bat crazy' nonsense.

I hope they sue, and win and in all of this the people that matter (the children) are given an arrangement that makes them happy.

none of the news reports I've seen have asked how the kids feel about it. A bit odd.

This is really asking the impossible, though, since (for example) I expect that very many foster parents have religious beliefs and would see it as not possible to care for a child without doing it the way of that particular religion. Are you seriously suggesting that (say) Mormon foster parents would make a point of completely isolating the child in their care from exposure to any Mormon influence?

So far as religion is concerned, a better question to me is why should ANY parents be permitted to express and influence children in their care towards their religious beliefs? Of course, it's a rhetorical question, as carers who can switch their personal views into total neutral in all things child related don't exist.

Amusing that [iCall Me Dave[/i has had to backtack on his, ''[ifruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists'',[/i description of UKIP,to satisfy the public angst.

They want a total freeze for 5 years. Seems fairly anti to me.


We have self governance. And what makes him think that the EU will be happy to grant us all the privileges of membership with none of the responsibilities? People like Farage are living in a fantasy world.

All that said, the available information would make this seem like a daft decision. Unless there's something still to come out I can't see any justification for the removal of the children.

It probably is asking the impossible but its a strange place that we find ourselves in where the State takes legal control over the lives of children in their care and then appoints fosters to house them on their behalf whilst paying them a not inconsiderable stipend for their troubles - and having sub-contracted the daily care are also willing write off any experiences learned during that care be it religious or cultural.

Of course there are serious efforts made towards match-making fosters with children and many foster homes are very short term and made under emergency and stressful situations, on the whole it [isounds[/i as though the social workers have got it generally right on most occasions, which is why I'm prepared to wait for the whole truth to emerge from this particular situation rather than kneejerk my way through stock phrases like the politicians do.

And yes, I have a friend & his wife who foster very young children, started two or three years ago and have had a dozen or so pass through their hands, hearts of gold the pair of them.

They don't have to embrace it to the hilt. Just within their household

Considering we have services at breaking point like Hospitals, and schools oversubscribed that would indicate too many people for the current infrastructure, would a 5 year stop on free movement of people from less developed countries be such a bad thing?



Self governance to a point, an example being the prison vote, we are being told by europe that we are breaking the law, that we must change or else.
Breaking the law? So if we are self governed then can't we turn around and say 'we set this law, it's our country, everyone's happy with this situation so sod off we are not breaking OUR law'.
But we won't/can't because......?

People who said America would have a black president were told they lived in a fantasy world, i like people who stick up for something they believe in, even if it does seem too idealistic.

So you are saying having myopic views about immigration stops you being a good foster parent to an immigrant child? I would suggest it is way more complicated than that.

The idea that a foster parent is so bland they are not able to influence the children in their care in any shape or form is not reality. How many people have you ever met that have neutral beliefs?

It is no wonder we never find foster parents for these kids, if they cannot have religious, political, social, sexual preferences - where are these modern day saints going to come from to foster these children?

Ther is an upside to all this: any parents who fancy a couple of weeks off from the kids should simply phone Social Services and tell them they've joined UKIP

Again, its worth re-iterating that this is fostering that we are speaking of, not adoption, the two are very different.

There is a move in some regions to introduce childrens homes again, the company I work for has as a client one successful privately owned business operating in this field with several homes across its area of operation, it is privately owned and privately operated but derives its income purely from the local authorities in its region and offers a foster caring service to those authorities which is on demand and totally inclusive, once they are certified they take away all of the responsibilities on social workers to check possibly up to one hundred individual foster parents and it seems to be a thriving business.

Those are the facts, now I'm going to stray into a hypothetical question - if I told you that these homes providing this service to local authorities were funded and operated by Muslims, or Catholics, or organisations with strong anti-semitic views, or strongly opposed immigration, or held any of your choice of controversial views, would you be quite so happy in allowing them to represent the state surrogate parenting role ?

Lest we forget if you're against mass uncontrolled immigration you are a bigot news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8649012.stm

Lest we forget if you're against mass uncontrolled immigration you are a bigot news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8649012.stm