Have the results of the enquiry been published?
No.
Oh so it is still all conjecture then.
Having said that, I thought multiculturalism was alive and well and had been practised successfully in the UK for hundreds of years.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Rotherham - Heads MUST Roll
Sex God
Quote by flower411
I'm amazed that the lure of £2000 a month is enough to ruin and put ones life on hold for the sake of someone Else's offspring really G
no in fact I'm amazed its been suggested :giveup:
I don`t understand why you think that fostering children will "ruin and put ones life on hold" !!
And £24000 a year over and above whatever else one might be earning sounds like a fairly substantial sum to me. Or have I missed your point ?
i don't know flower you have the answers tell me how much a child cost to bring up per year taken into account holidays,clothing,mobile phones, etc etc not forgetting contribution costs and so on like extra electric, gas,
mind you flower you could apply for a couple of kids if your a bit short
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
Have the results of the enquiry been published?
No.
Oh so it is still all conjecture then.
Having said that, I thought multiculturalism was alive and well and had been practised successfully in the UK for hundreds of years.
It has Ben, it is Ben and it always will be. Just maybe change hundreds of years to a couple of thousand years:
The Romans pre-dated the Ango Saxons and at the time the Roman armies left (and left behind many of their genetic offsprings there was a population of about 2,000,000 combined of Romans, Celts and the earlier Beakers (a good multi cultural melting pot). The Ango Saxons were Germanic but remember that by todays definition Germanic means, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Denmark. By 800 AD the Vikings arrived and colonised in a big way and stuck around for about 250 years meaning that by 1100 AD the population of 3,000,000 was made up of ancient Beakers, Celts, Romans, Anglo Saxons and Vikings. In anyones book a bit of a cocktail of multi culturism. Once the Norman (French but I accept Danish heritage) genes were spread around a little, the 3,000,000 population had increased to 8,000,000 at the time of the first census in 1801 (an increase of 5,000,000 in 700 years but over the next 100 years the population shot up to 30,000,000 by the industrial revolution and is today approximately 55,000,000 (England).
Organic population on that scale was impossible up to recent years because of limited lifespans meaning that immigration continued on a huge scale from the Norman invasion until the 19th century and continues to this day. Nothing new.
Quote by starlightcouple
a year? Don't think so.
The article you cite makes it clear that fostering three children could easily result in an incoming payment of £2000 a month if not more. It also highlights the need for foster carers to be rewarded sufficiently for them to consider care to be an alternative to employment.
Quote by Too Hot
..................meaning that immigration continued on a huge scale from the Norman invasion until the 19th century and continues to this day. Nothing new.
You contradict yourself. You clearly state earlier in your post that the growth between the Norman conquest and the first census in 1801 is organic growth. The main reason for the population explosion of the 19th Century was again organic, not immigration, being largely due to the effects of the industrial revolution and the advances in medicine. The population of Europe doubled during the same period.
Sex God
Quote by Max777
..................meaning that immigration continued on a huge scale from the Norman invasion until the 19th century and continues to this day. Nothing new.
You contradict yourself. You clearly state earlier in your post that the growth between the Norman conquest and the first census in 1801 is organic growth. The main reason for the population explosion of the 19th Century was again organic, not immigration, being largely due to the effects of the industrial revolution and the advances in medicine. The population of Europe doubled during the same period.
Very poor English on my part - now corrected. We are a nation of immigrants Max and it does not take much investigation to see how this has come about.
Quote by Too Hot
..................meaning that immigration continued on a huge scale from the Norman invasion until the 19th century and continues to this day. Nothing new.
You contradict yourself. You clearly state earlier in your post that the growth between the Norman conquest and the first census in 1801 is organic growth. The main reason for the population explosion of the 19th Century was again organic, not immigration, being largely due to the effects of the industrial revolution and the advances in medicine. The population of Europe doubled during the same period.
Very poor English on my part - now corrected. We are a nation of immigrants Max and it does not take much investigation to see how this has come about.
Can't argue with that.
Sex God
Quote by flower411
I'm amazed that the lure of £2000 a month is enough to ruin and put ones life on hold for the sake of someone Else's offspring really G
no in fact I'm amazed its been suggested :giveup:
I don`t understand why you think that fostering children will "ruin and put ones life on hold" !!
for the first time in x amount of years we are without children our son has purchased his own house
our daughter has all but moved in with her boyfriend
the freedom we have is amazing, to take on children now would to us be putting our life on hold and ruin that freedom we are currently enjoying
simples flower !
So here it seems is the truth of the matter.
Where the head of children's services a Joyce Thacker has openly admitted and I quote,
' has said that the children, who were from ‘EU migrant backgrounds’, had been removed to protect their ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ from UKIP’s ‘strong views’ and apparent ‘opposition to multiculturalism’.
Well there you have it. A very disturbing and a very serious case of being sinister indeed.
'The clear implication is that they were racists. But there is nothing racist about opposing multiculturalism. Indeed, many immigrants themselves oppose it. To damn this couple in this way is an appalling smear'.
We have seen exactly that on this very forum over the last couple of days, where people can accuse others of being racists without a shred of foundation other than to force other people to agree with their own twisted views on race.
This case is I reckon one of many, only this one has got into the public arena, and I am glad that it has. Do Social workers have the children's interests at heart, or their own warped and twisted views on life, decide what decisions they make. When we have the actual head of children's services uttering such nonsense and is using 'reverse racism' to suit her own political agendas, I find it utterly incomprehensible that these people are allowed to use their own judgements on such matters when they are obviously of a warped prospective, and even more worrying is that they seem to be able to get away with it as well.
Where the head of children's services a Joyce Thacker has openly admitted and I quote,
' has said that the children, who were from ‘EU migrant backgrounds’, had been removed to protect their ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ from UKIP’s ‘strong views’ and apparent ‘opposition to multiculturalism’.
Well there you have it. A very disturbing and a very serious case of being sinister indeed.
'The clear implication is that they were racists. But there is nothing racist about opposing multiculturalism. Indeed, many immigrants themselves oppose it. To damn this couple in this way is an appalling smear'.
We have seen exactly that on this very forum over the last couple of days, where people can accuse others of being racists without a shred of foundation other than to force other people to agree with their own twisted views on race.
This case is I reckon one of many, only this one has got into the public arena, and I am glad that it has. Do Social workers have the children's interests at heart, or their own warped and twisted views on life, decide what decisions they make. When we have the actual head of children's services uttering such nonsense and is using 'reverse racism' to suit her own political agendas, I find it utterly incomprehensible that these people are allowed to use their own judgements on such matters when they are obviously of a warped prospective, and even more worrying is that they seem to be able to get away with it as well.
has said that the children, who were from ‘EU migrant backgrounds’, had been removed
to protect their ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ from UKIP’s ‘strong views’ and apparent ‘opposition to multiculturalism’.
Nope, I don't see this as racist or sinister or indeed wrong, as I have said I think those who have to ensure a childs well being, rights, cultural needs, previous upbringing, sexual orientation and more have a difficult job, if they believe that being fostered by parents who have the wrong views for the child then they are quite right to refuse having them foster that particular child but can still consider them for other children.
I think what they got drastically wrong was putting the children in the care of someone with those views or members of a party with those views in the first place, if the UKIP's strong views on multiculturism are a factor with EU migrant children then the first thing they should have checked is that they were on members of the UKIP.
to protect their ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ from UKIP’s ‘strong views’ and apparent ‘opposition to multiculturalism’.
Nope, I don't see this as racist or sinister or indeed wrong, as I have said I think those who have to ensure a childs well being, rights, cultural needs, previous upbringing, sexual orientation and more have a difficult job, if they believe that being fostered by parents who have the wrong views for the child then they are quite right to refuse having them foster that particular child but can still consider them for other children.
I think what they got drastically wrong was putting the children in the care of someone with those views or members of a party with those views in the first place, if the UKIP's strong views on multiculturism are a factor with EU migrant children then the first thing they should have checked is that they were on members of the UKIP.
Quote by MidsCouple24
has said that the children, who were from ‘EU migrant backgrounds’, had been removed
to protect their ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ from UKIP’s ‘strong views’ and apparent ‘opposition to multiculturalism’.
Nope, I don't see this as racist or sinister or indeed wrong, as I have said I think those who have to ensure a childs well being, rights, cultural needs, previous upbringing, sexual orientation and more have a difficult job, if they believe that being fostered by parents who have the wrong views for the child then they are quite right to refuse having them foster that particular child but can still consider them for other children.
I think what they got drastically wrong was putting the children in the care of someone with those views or members of a party with those views in the first place, if the UKIP's strong views on multiculturism are a factor with EU migrant children then the first thing they should have checked is that they were on members of the UKIP.
Couldn't disagree with you more there Mids. This Social Services department is behaving like the Thought Police from Orwell's 1984! Just because they (the foster parents) are members of UKIP does not make them unfit to bring up children.
The same could be said of any person who is a member of any political party or follows a particular religion!
The over-riding criteria should be will the children be bought up in a loving, safe, clean and supportive environment.
Quote by Stevie
The over-riding criteria should be will the children be bought up in a loving, safe, clean and supportive environment.
Which is supposed to be properly supervised by the Authority.
Their own failures in this are well recorded.....
Perhaps they should concentrate on what they are required to do by law, not set about decent law abiding citizens.
Quote by GnV
The over-riding criteria should be will the children be bought up in a loving, safe, clean and supportive environment.
Which is supposed to be properly supervised by the Authority.
Their own failures in this are well recorded.....
Perhaps they should concentrate on what they are required to do by law, not set about decent law abiding citizens.
:thumbup:
Quote by Stevie_and_Kitty
has said that the children, who were from ‘EU migrant backgrounds’, had been removed
to protect their ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ from UKIP’s ‘strong views’ and apparent ‘opposition to multiculturalism’.
Nope, I don't see this as racist or sinister or indeed wrong, as I have said I think those who have to ensure a childs well being, rights, cultural needs, previous upbringing, sexual orientation and more have a difficult job, if they believe that being fostered by parents who have the wrong views for the child then they are quite right to refuse having them foster that particular child but can still consider them for other children.
I think what they got drastically wrong was putting the children in the care of someone with those views or members of a party with those views in the first place, if the UKIP's strong views on multiculturism are a factor with EU migrant children then the first thing they should have checked is that they were on members of the UKIP.
Couldn't disagree with you more there Mids. This Social Services department is behaving like the Thought Police from Orwell's 1984! Just because they (the foster parents) are members of UKIP does not make them unfit to bring up children.
Of course it doesn't but it does make them unfit to bring up these particular children since the UKIP is against their very presence in the UK and the people whose responsibility it is to care for them actively support that view.
The same could be said of any person who is a member of any political party or follows a particular religion!
The over-riding criteria should be will the children be bought up in a loving, safe, clean and supportive environment.
Of course it is, so why do you then say the religious beliefs, cultural needs, sexual orientation and views of the children are of no importance ? how can you be supportive when you are actively against thwhat the child is, a homophobic fostering a gay child is not right, a Muslim Arab fostering a Jew, a Jew fostering a Muslim Arab how can this be a loving and supportive environment, would it be safe ?
Quote by MidsCouple24
Of course it is, so why do you then say the religious beliefs, cultural needs, sexual orientation and views of the children are of no importance ? how can you be supportive when you are actively against what the child is, a homophobic fostering a gay child is not right, a Muslim Arab fostering a Jew, a Jew fostering a Muslim Arab how can this be a loving and supportive environment, would it be safe ?
Really? is this what you believe?
so for clarity...
1) Do you believe that a gay couple can not bring up a hetero child as they might turn them gay???
2) A white couple can not bring up a child of mixed or ethnic origin?
3) A christian could not bring up a catholic child?
4) A catholic could not bring up an atheist?
5) A labour supporter couldn't fall in love and marry a staunch capitilist?
Sexpert
Quote by MidsCouple24
Of course it is, so why do you then say the religious beliefs, cultural needs, sexual orientation and views of the children are of no importance ? how can you be supportive when you are actively against what the child is, a homophobic fostering a gay child is not right, a Muslim Arab fostering a Jew, a Jew fostering a Muslim Arab how can this be a loving and supportive environment, would it be safe ?
I don't think that it is true that supporters of UKIP are actively against these children. If you read the UKIP web site, UKIP appear to be opposed to Europe, and multiculturalism. Further to this they wish to impose immigration quotas as in initially suspend immigration for 5 years there in after look at controls on presumably economic migrants.
I would back this thinking up by the outrage expressed by the leader of UKIP, David Cameron's retraction of the racist accusations slung at UKIP, and the education secretary Michael Gove's condemnation of RMBC's actions.
Looking at UKIP's policy -
Opposition to Europe seems to be primarily based on the costs and the loss of sovereignty to the European parliament. They seem rather less opposed to the Europeans themselves than say some of your own comments about the French.
Opposition to Multiculturalism is very much to the excesses such as in fact RMBC. The details I found were -
Our traditional values have been undermined. Children are taught to be ashamed of our past. Multiculturalism has split our society. Political correctness is stifling free speech.
Immigration policy whilst UKIP do want to suspend and then impose quotas on immigration, they don't seem to be suggesting that anybody should be deported.
Given that the couple involved with this story:
- have been fostering for 7 years
- have doubtless had inspections regarding these children
- are reported as providing a loving and supportive environment
- seem to be very upset they have been removed
I can't see why the fact they are UKIP (a mainstream political party) supporters should matter a damn.
Who knows who are the best people to bring up a particular child, oh wait those responsible for agreeing to the foster/adoption are responsible to say that.
And that is my point, each child DESERVES his or her case to be individually decided, if a gay couple want to adopt a hetrosexual child that is fine PROVIDING the authorities have are aware of all factors and decide that they would make good parents albeit temporary in some cases, for that particular child.
The same applies to a hetrosexual couple wanting to foster or adopt a hetrosexual child, they too should undergo the same consideration, just because one couple is gay it doesn't automatically rule them out and just because one couple are hetrosexual it doesn't make them suitable, what I am trying to say is each and every case should be looked at individually.
Membership of a party that is against immigrants is a cause for a red flag popping up when it comes to a decision over an immigrant child, surely it would be safer to find that couple a child of British heritage and find that child a pro-immigration family.
This is my personal opinion, nothing more nothing less.
Meanwhile, on the subject of protecting children ...........
Home Secretary Theresa May has said that South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright should "heed calls to resign".
The police commissioner has vowed to stay in the job despite calls for him to quit over child abuse in Rotherham.
An inquiry found at least 1,400 children in the town were sexually exploited by predominantly Asian criminal gangs between 1997 and 2013.
Shaun Wright was the Labour councillor in charge of children's services at Rotherham Council from 2005 to 2010.
Mr Wright told the BBC the scale of the problem in Rotherham had "come as a surprise".
I call upon Theresa May to resign, she is the Home Secretary and therefore she is responsible for ensuring that the authorities have the means to prevent child abuse and child cruelty, she has failed to do that, her and all her predecessors, the children of Britain rely on charity to help them, the NSPCC, a charitable organisation, St Bernados and other such charitable organisations.
She should resign and be ashamed that the children she is paid to protect have to rely on charity for that protection.
And that is my point, each child DESERVES his or her case to be individually decided, if a gay couple want to adopt a hetrosexual child that is fine PROVIDING the authorities have are aware of all factors and decide that they would make good parents albeit temporary in some cases, for that particular child.
The same applies to a hetrosexual couple wanting to foster or adopt a hetrosexual child, they too should undergo the same consideration, just because one couple is gay it doesn't automatically rule them out and just because one couple are hetrosexual it doesn't make them suitable, what I am trying to say is each and every case should be looked at individually.
Membership of a party that is against immigrants is a cause for a red flag popping up when it comes to a decision over an immigrant child, surely it would be safer to find that couple a child of British heritage and find that child a pro-immigration family.
This is my personal opinion, nothing more nothing less.
Meanwhile, on the subject of protecting children ...........
Home Secretary Theresa May has said that South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright should "heed calls to resign".
The police commissioner has vowed to stay in the job despite calls for him to quit over child abuse in Rotherham.
An inquiry found at least 1,400 children in the town were sexually exploited by predominantly Asian criminal gangs between 1997 and 2013.
Shaun Wright was the Labour councillor in charge of children's services at Rotherham Council from 2005 to 2010.
Mr Wright told the BBC the scale of the problem in Rotherham had "come as a surprise".
I call upon Theresa May to resign, she is the Home Secretary and therefore she is responsible for ensuring that the authorities have the means to prevent child abuse and child cruelty, she has failed to do that, her and all her predecessors, the children of Britain rely on charity to help them, the NSPCC, a charitable organisation, St Bernados and other such charitable organisations.
She should resign and be ashamed that the children she is paid to protect have to rely on charity for that protection.
