Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30
  1. #1
    R.I.P
    Mr Lick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    25-09-2014 @ 02:50 PM
    Location
    Mountain view
    Posts
    40,028

    More proof that Labour controlled councils are barking mad

    UKIP couple have foster children removed






    Joyce Thacker, Rotherham Borough Council: ''We had to seriously think about the long-term needs of the children''


    A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.

    Rotherham Borough Council said the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration.

    It said it had to consider the "needs of the children longer term".

    The unnamed couple told the Daily Telegraph social workers had accused them of belonging to a "racist party". UKIP said it was an appalling decision.

    Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC that her decision was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy, which she said calls for the end of the "active promotion of multiculturalism".

    UKIP's immigration policy states the party wants an "end [to] the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", and urges Britain to leave the European Union (EU).

    The Labour Party has called for an investigation into the Labour-run council's decision, after claims from UKIP it could have been politically motivated.

    A parliamentary by-election is due in Rotherham on 29 November following the resignation of Labour MP Denis MacShane.

    'Dumbfounded'

    The couple, who have been approved foster parents for seven years, were eight weeks into the placement when they were approached by social workers about their membership of the party.

    The wife told the Daily Telegraph: "I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has UKIP got to do with having the children removed?'
    UKIP immigration policy

    • An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement.
    • After the five year freeze, a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia to be introduced.
    • An aspiration to ensure that future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people a year.
    • Regain control of UK borders by leaving the EU.
    • Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
    • Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years.
    • End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government
    SOURCE: UKIP website


    "Then one of them said, 'Well, UKIP have got racist policies.' The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said UKIP does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries."

    The paper says the woman denied she was racist but the children were taken away by the end of the week.

    She said the social worker told her: "We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of UKIP because it wouldn't have been the right cultural match."

    The couple said they had been "stigmatised and slandered".

    Ms Thacker said she did not regret the decision, which was reached after "a lot of soul searching".

    "These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."

    She added during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today: "I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs.

    "I have legal advice I have to follow for the placement of children and I was criticised before for not making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met.

    "If the party mantra is, for example, ending the active promotion of multiculturalism I have to think about that... I have to think of their longer-term needs.

    "I don't think [UKIP] are a racist party... I think they have very clear immigration and policies and I have to take all those factors into account."

    She added that the children were placed with the family temporarily and were never intended to stay with the family long-term.

    The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future.






    UKIP leader Nigel Farage said the couple has been subjected to "appalling prejudice"


    'Political bias'

    UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned the decision and said the council had many questions to answer.

    He told the BBC he felt: "Very upset and very angry... this couple involved who have been fostering for many years and are very decent people. This was an awful shock to them, not to mention the upset for the children themselves.

    "Politically, I am not surprised at all. This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils.

    "We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."

    He added in a statement: "They [the council] have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias?

    "Publicly they must make absolutely clear the decision-making process in this case, who was responsible for this decision and why."

    In a statement, Labour said: "Membership of UKIP should not block parents from adopting children. There needs to be an urgent investigation by Rotherham Borough Council into this decision."

    The education secretary Michael Gove said he will be investigating how the decision to remove the children came to be made, and described it as "indefensible".

    "Rotherham Council have made the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

    "We should not allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families.

    "Any council which decides that supporting a mainstream UK political party disbars an individual from looking after children in care is sending a dreadful signal that will only decrease the number of loving homes available to children in need," he added.

    UKIP describes itself as a "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union".

    It currently has 12 MEPs and 31 councillors, with three peers in the House of Lords.

  2. #2
    Thailand Expat
    Albert Shagnastier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    22-03-2015 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    7,164
    Spookily enough I didn't have to read the story. The pictures confirmed the headline

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat
    r1 pet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    29-07-2019 @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    si bun rueang
    Posts
    1,226
    is this the council who had children in there care groomed for sex by a gang of pakies ? the caring council

  4. #4
    Not a Mod.
    Begbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Lagrangian Point
    Posts
    11,369
    The UKIP is just the BNP in suits so it's easy to understand the concern.

  5. #5
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    The UKIP is just the BNP in suits so it's easy to understand the concern.
    No it isn't you fucking idiot. The decision should have nothing to do with politics, otherwise the council should sack the social worker for having a copy of the Grauniad on her desk.
    The most important issue here is the kids. If the social worker disagrees with my politics or yours, does that give her the right to take away our children. No it doesn't.
    Joyce Thacker and the social worker should be dismissed immediately and go on some kind of child protection register to protect kids from being fucked up by them ever again.
    Politics has nothing to do with bringing up children and this decision is disgrace.
    Heart of Gold and a Knob of butter.

  6. #6
    Not a Mod.
    Begbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Lagrangian Point
    Posts
    11,369
    ^What a lot of bollox, I won't bother stooping to call you an idiot.

    These were not "their children". They were three children in foster care. When the social work department found out that the couple harboured some fairly extreme political views they erred on the side of caution. The children's welfare was rightly put first.
    Last edited by Begbie; 24-11-2012 at 10:12 PM.

  7. #7
    R.I.P
    Mr Lick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    25-09-2014 @ 02:50 PM
    Location
    Mountain view
    Posts
    40,028



    Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham



    Motto: Where everyone matters - except if you are a member of the UKIP

  8. #8
    Thailand Expat
    taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,354
    When the social work department found out that the couple harboured some fairly extreme political views they erred on the side of caution. The children's welfare was rightly put first.

    the childrens welfare was never in question, this is about the blind promotion of multiculturalism and political correctness, and the zero tolerance and outright persecution of those who dare to challenge or disagree with that policy.

    just look at the po faced horror in the picture, its the ugly face of the council jobsworth, to be found by the thousand in offices up and down the country, they are on six figure salaries, watertight pensions and massive payouts should they lose their jobs through redundancy or suffer some work related stress.
    they live by their bloated manuals of political correct workplace etiquette and jargon, compliment one of these sour faced cows on a nice dress and prepare to be hauled through the labour courts on a sexual harrassment charge barely short of anal rape, give off the slightest subliminal negative vibe about homos, muslims, dwarves, fatties, retards and lesbians and you are toast.

    anti semitism, anti christian and anti british sentiments will get you promoted though.

    its typical of the dogma driven meddling carried out by left wing agencies on a daily basis in britain, its thought control by nasty minded brainwashed power crazed individuals who cant see further than their own cant.

    fuck these people.



    THE TELEGRAPH UK.
    By Patrick Sawer12:09PM GMT 24 Nov 2012

    Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council has announced it will now carry out an urgent review of the case, after the husband and wife, who have been fostering for nearly seven years, said they were made to feel like criminals when a social worker told them their views on immigration made them unsuitable carers for the three ethnic minority children.

    The decision provoked widespread criticism, with campaigners representing foster parents describing the decision as “ridiculous” and warning that it could deter other prospective foster parents from volunteering.

    Joyce Thacker, the council's Director of Children and Young People's Services, toured radio and television studios on Saturday to defend the decision, saying the children had been removed in order to protect their "cultural and ethnic needs".


    But shortly after, and in the face of widespread condemnation, Rotherham announced its review of the decision.


    Roger Stone, the council's Labour leader, said: "The professionals are telling me the decision was made in the best interests of the children and I have no problems with that at all.

    He added, however: "We will now carry out an inquiry into whether all the correct procedures were carried out and whether things have been done properly. That inquiry has probably started already."

    Mrs Thacker had told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We always try to place children in a sensible cultural placement. These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views.

    There are some strong views in the Ukip party and we have to think of the future of the children."

    "Also the fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in."

    Asked what the specific problem was with the couple being Ukip members, Mrs Thacker told the BBC: "We have to think about the clear statements on ending multi-culturalism for example.

    "These children are from EU migrant backgrounds and Ukip has very clear statements on ending multiculturalism, not having that going forward, and I have to think about how sensitive I am being to those children."

    Mrs Thacker said the three children had been placed with the couple as an emergency and the arrangement was never going to be long-term.

    She added that there was no issue about the quality of care the couple provided and said she would co-operate with any investigation.

    The Labour Party, which runs Rotherham, quickly tried to distance itself from the council's decision.

    Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, called for an urgent investigation into the case, adding: "What matters is children in Rotherham and elsewhere, and being a member of a political party like Ukip should not be a bar to fostering children.

    "Right-thinking people across the country will think there are thousands of children who need to be looked after, who need fostering, we shouldn't have the situation where membership of a party like Ukip excludes you from doing that.
    "We need loving homes for children across the country. That can come in different forms, it's not about what political party you are a member of."


    Meanwhile Michael Gove, who heads the Government department responsible for children's services and who was himself adopted as a child, described Rotherham's decision as "indefensible".
    He said social workers had made "the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons" and that he would be personally investigating and exploring steps to "deal with" the situation.
    Mr Gove said: "Rotherham council have made the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Rotherham's reasons for denying this family the chance to foster are indefensible," he said.
    "The ideology behind their decision is actively harmful to children. We should not allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families. We need more parents to foster, and many more to adopt.
    "Any council which decides that supporting a mainstream UK political party disbars an individual from looking after children in care is sending a dreadful signal that will only decrease the number of loving homes available to children in need. I will be investigating just how this decision came to be made and what steps we need to take to deal with this situation."


    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.

    The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’

    “Then one of them said, 'Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.

    “I’m sat there and I’m thinking, 'What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.

    "I’ve got mixed race in my family. I said, 'I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party’.”

    The wife said she told the social worker and agency official: “These kids have been loved. These kids have been treated no differently to our own children. We wouldn’t have taken these children on if we had been racist.

    ”The boy was taken away from them the following day and the two girls were removed at the end of that week."

    The wife said the social worker told her: “We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of Ukip because it wouldn’t have been the right cultural match.”

    The wife said she was left “bereft”, adding: “We felt like we were criminals. From having a little baby in my arms, suddenly there was an empty cot. I knew she wouldn’t have been here for ever, but usually there is a build-up of several weeks. I was in tears, although not in front of the social worker.”

    Her husband added: “If we were moving the children on to happier circumstances we would be feeling warm and happy. To have it done like that, it’s beyond the pale.”
    The couple said they had been “stigmatised and slandered”. They now fear they will no longer be allowed to foster again.

    Responding to Mrs Thacker the couple said: "Joyce Thacker referred to us as carers not being able to meet the cultural needs of these children in the long-term.

    "We feel that we were meeting the cultural needs of these children. We were actively encouraging these children to speak their own language and to teach us their language. We enjoyed singing one of their folk songs in their native language.

    "Having been told of the religious denomination of these children, we also took steps to ensure that a school of their denomination was found."

    Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, described the actions of Rotherham borough council as “a bloody outrage” and “political prejudice of the very worst kind”.

    UKIP was once considered a single-issue fringe party but is now part of Britain’s political mainstream, with some recent national polls putting its support as high as nine per cent.

    Its manifesto includes a demand for Britain to pull out of Europe and to curb immigration. It is also critical of multiculturalism and political correctness.

    The party has three peers in the House of Lords, all defectors from the Conservatives, and 12 MEPs, although it has never won a seat in the Commons. It has a candidate in next week’s by-election in Rotherham.

    Mr Farage said: “I am outraged politically and very upset for them. I think this is the kind of thing where we need some sort of decree from a Government minister that Ukip is not a racist party.

    “This is political prejudice of the very worst kind. It is just a bloody outrage.”
    He pointed out that Ukip has a black candidate in the forthcoming Croydon North by-election.

    David Goosey, the chairman of the trustees at Community Foster care, an independent fostering charity, said: “If this is accurate and there are no other extraneous matters that have concerned the authorities, then it is completely ridiculous and no self-respecting authority should be stopping people fostering on the grounds of their membership of Ukip.”

    Nushra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, said: “My first question would be, does the local council have a clear equality policy so you can understand a bit more about the decision-making?

    “Otherwise it’s very difficult to fathom.”

    Tim Loughton, the former children’s minister, said: “I will be very concerned if decisions have been made about the children's future that were based on misguided political correctness around ethnic considerations.

    "Being a supporter of a mainstream political party is not a deal-breaker when it comes to looking after children if it means they can have a loving family home.”

    A spokesman for Rotherham council said last night: “After a group of sibling children were placed with agency foster carers, issues were raised regarding the long-term suitability of the carers for these particular children.

    "With careful consideration, a decision was taken to move the children to alternative care. We continue to keep the situation under review.”
    Last edited by taxexile; 24-11-2012 at 10:30 PM.

  9. #9
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:41 AM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    7,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Lick
    A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.
    Becomes:
    couple harboured some fairly extreme political views
    What did I miss?

    Independent review panel? Interesting to hear the findings....

  10. #10
    R.I.P
    Mr Lick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    25-09-2014 @ 02:50 PM
    Location
    Mountain view
    Posts
    40,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    These were not "their children". They were three children in foster care. When the social work department found out that the couple harboured some fairly extreme political views they erred on the side of caution. The children's welfare was rightly put first.
    I wouln't consider that some form of immigration control is an extreme view, if it was then the majority of UK citizens would be deemed extremists.

    The Labour Party whilst in government had an open door policy and it is they who have caused resentment felt by many indigenous citizens. The Labour Party have admitted such only this year. It's a trifle late in the day though now they they have been voted out of power. They failed to listen when governing and now they believe that they can fool the electorate by admitting they got things wrong at a time when Rotherham Labour council is displaying an opposing view. Idiots!!

    Rotherham has been the safest UK Labour Party council for some time. The prejudice they are displaying over this issue is clear. They are not fit for purpose.

  11. #11
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    These were not "their children". They were three children in foster care. When the social work department found out that the couple harboured some fairly extreme political views they erred on the side of caution. The children's welfare was rightly put first. __________________
    In the unlikely event that someone like you were able to father children, they should be removed from your care on account of you being a complete moron.
    Politics has no place in determining foster parents fitness, The hoops potential foster carers have to jump through should have been quite sufficient to declare this couple fit to care for children. What gives a numbskull like you the right to decide otherwise?

  12. #12
    Not a Mod.
    Begbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Lagrangian Point
    Posts
    11,369
    Quote Originally Posted by chassamui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    These were not "their children". They were three children in foster care. When the social work department found out that the couple harboured some fairly extreme political views they erred on the side of caution. The children's welfare was rightly put first. __________________
    In the unlikely event that someone like you were able to father children, they should be removed from your care on account of you being a complete moron.
    Politics has no place in determining foster parents fitness, The hoops potential foster carers have to jump through should have been quite sufficient to declare this couple fit to care for children. What gives a numbskull like you the right to decide otherwise?
    It's not worth attempting to educate you, I suspect you're beyond an age when reality can impinge on your prejudices.

    I repeat that in these situations the children's welfare is paramount. If people wish to subscribe to hateful world views they should realize it comes with a price.

  13. #13
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile
    Mrs Thacker had told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We always try to place children in a sensible cultural placement. These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views.
    FAIL
    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile
    Nushra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, said: “My first question would be, does the local council have a clear equality policy so you can understand a bit more about the decision-making?
    FAIL
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Lick
    She said the social worker told her: "We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of UKIP because it wouldn't have been the right cultural match."
    FAIL
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    The UKIP is just the BNP in suits so it's easy to understand the concern.
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    When the social work department found out that the couple harboured some fairly extreme political views they erred on the side of caution
    EPIC MORON FAIL

  14. #14
    Thailand Expat
    taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,354
    begbie
    I repeat that in these situations the children's welfare is paramount
    rotherham council
    added that there was no issue about the quality of care the couple provided
    this is all about the promotion of multiculturalsm as proscribed by the town council, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the care of the children.

    do you not think that removing these children without notice from this family, who were being called mum and dad by the kids by this stage, will have been confusing and traumatic for them. shuffling them around like pawns in some demented power struggle.

    these council workers should be fucking shot, like most idiot socialists.

  15. #15
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    It's not worth attempting to educate you, I suspect you're beyond an age when reality can impinge on your prejudices.
    A moron with views like your could not educate peanuts. I am of an age where i understand the difference between sensible, proven childcare ability and the political malice of a tree hugging sandal wearing socialist.
    If you truly believe the chidrens best interest are served by politics then you worse than the pricks who took them away from a caring sensible family.

    You are an oxygen thief with no redeeming values.

  16. #16
    Not a Mod.
    Begbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Lagrangian Point
    Posts
    11,369
    Quote Originally Posted by chassamui View Post
    I am of an age where i understand the difference between sensible, proven childcare ability and the political malice of a tree hugging sandal wearing socialist.
    Not really the issue here but I suspect you know that. Let's put this another way. Should children be placed in harms way just to satisfy the political prejudices of extremists like yourself who laughingly claim to be mainstream because a few deluded idiots voted for the party of their choice?

    Your display of dishonesty to this point would imply that your answer would be yes.

  17. #17
    R.I.P
    Mr Lick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    25-09-2014 @ 02:50 PM
    Location
    Mountain view
    Posts
    40,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Lick
    UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned the decision and said the council had many questions to answer. He told the BBC he felt: "Very upset and very angry... this couple involved who have been fostering for many years and are very decent people.

    This was an awful shock to them, not to mention the upset for the children themselves. "Politically, I am not surprised at all.

    This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils. "We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."

    He added in a statement: "They [the council] have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias?
    Nigel Farage puts it across clearly enough - a sad reflection on the Labour Party and their lunatic policies

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    Not really the issue here but I suspect you know that. Let's put this another way. Should children be placed in harms way just to satisfy the political prejudices of extremists like yourself who laughingly claim to be mainstream because a few deluded idiots voted for the party of their choice? Your display of dishonesty to this point would imply that your answer would be yes.
    It's an issue that you raised fuckwit.
    I have never known any poster, with the possible exception of smeg, be so wide of the mark in his failure to understand any issue.
    It's really quite simple.
    The council placed children with a proven foster family.
    A politically correct, biased social worker chose to ignore the interests of those children in favour of his/her own political prejudice .
    Unless that family is a danger to those children, which they clearly were not, then the social service has no business placing political impositions on the family or the children. That is not the remit of the council or the social services.

    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    Should children be placed in harms way just to satisfy the political prejudices of extremists like
    Rotherham council and Rotherham social services.
    That is the question you should be asking. The children have been put at risk by a wayward PC system, and politcal zealots, not by a caring foster family.

    You are obviously not British or you might have some understanding of the social and political mess the country is in. If you are not British then go back to school and get an education before you come on here posting arrogant shite.

  19. #19
    Not a Mod.
    Begbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Lagrangian Point
    Posts
    11,369
    ^well spotted Chass I am not British although I do carry a British passport. As for arrogant shite I suggest you read your own posts. Though you're probably beyond embarrassment

  20. #20
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    ^well spotted Chass I am not British although I do carry a British passport. As for arrogant shite I suggest you read your own posts. Though you're probably beyond embarrassment
    So, that is your answer to all the questions that I and others have raised regarding your stupidity and lack of understanding in this issue?
    Well done genius.

  21. #21
    Not a Mod.
    Begbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Lagrangian Point
    Posts
    11,369
    I understand the issue very well, do you? It's about the safety of children placed into foster care. Politics is secondary. I'm not responding to your "questions" because I try not to converse at length with morons. It's bad for both parties.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    30-01-2013 @ 09:22 AM
    Posts
    10,902
    Are gays in the UK allowed to adopt yet?

    If so, just give 'em to a couple of pooftas.

  23. #23
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    I understand the issue very well, do you? It's about the safety of children placed into foster care. Politics is secondary. I'm not responding to your "questions" because I try not to converse at length with morons. It's bad for both parties.
    Since you refuse to answer, and you maintain as I do that the interests of the children are paramount, why is it you prefer politically motivated decisions should be made against the love and care of proven foster parents?
    If you can't or won't answer that question, you have proved your fuckwittery beyond all doubt.
    The question has nothing to do with my political beliefs or those of the foster carers.
    A safe, experienced and proven, caring family with seven exemplary years service, versus a politically motivated bureaucrat?
    If the children matter so much, why was a pen pusher allowed to rip them from a family where they were clearly happy and settled?
    Answers dammit, not platitudes or insults.

  24. #24
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54N
    Posts
    11,353
    Quote Originally Posted by r1 pet
    is this the council who had children in there care groomed for sex by a gang of pakies ? the caring council

    'Police turned a blind eye to South Yorkshire sex grooming gangs for a decade' | Mail Online
    • Documents reveal scale of sexual exploitation of girls in South Yorkshire
    • Vulnerable white girl, known to have been abused from the age of 12, was offered Urdu and Punjabi lessons by Rotherham Council to 'educate her'
    The council are filth , and most of the voters thier too

    The best thing to do is end democracy altogether .
    Most Idiots in Rotherham always vote labour as they see it as the workers party,
    even though it clearly isn't anymore ''my grandad voted labour , by dad voted ,,,
    ''is thier mantra,




    Fury as Rotherham council takes children from foster parents because they


    The children, who stayed with the couple for eight weeks, were encouraged to speak their language which their foster parents were trying to learn, the foster mother said.

    We enjoyed singing one of their folk songs in their native language, and having been told of the religious denomination of these children we took steps to ensure that a school of their denomination was found.”
    The foster mother claimed the children have been placed with families who are also white British, and she questioned how the council thought these couples could fulfil the children’s cultural needs.
    The foster parents sound stupid.
    If the children are Eastern European they should be deported , they are like cuckoos

  25. #25
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:41 AM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    7,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    ^What a lot of bollox, I won't bother stooping to call you an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Begbie
    I'm not responding to your "questions" because I try not to converse at length with morons


    ^well spotted Chass I am not British although I do carry a British passport.
    hmmm.....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •