Everything Labour. Every weekday morning.
I heard various interviews with the Rotherham Social Services Director this morning. Even though clearly not backing the comments made by her staff about UKIP being rascist, failed completely to do the sensible thing and promise to look into why this couple were given such an explanation. Instead stuck to defending the decision, which is unsustainable without an explanation of the comments to the couple by Social Services.
If they were going to move them anyway, why was a comment made about them being unsuitable because of UKIP memebership.
Almost made me feel sorry for Nigel Farrage as well, which is not something I’d ever have expected to say. You wouldn’t treat a dog like Rotherham Social Services seem to think they need to treat people.
I agree, and the response nationally has been sensible from all sides. It does appear that the social services department in Rotherham is lead by some spectacularly stupid people. If the intention was only for a short term placement, why was the defence about a long term worry (ill-placed) about multiculturalism?
I imagine Rotherham will soon be finding a replacement for their head of social services department, and hopefully the new head will be able to educate the front line staff into what is normal and what is completely demented thinking.
You make a very good couple of points there. I’d forgotten the by-election was on it’s way.
Her utterly inept interview performance on the Saturday Today programme was one for the records. She clearly did not understand how bigoted her views were.
The question is also why they were placed there in any case.
Every foster case is decided as an individual case and on its own merit, and there didn’t seem to be any reference to that at all. Surely the obvious thing would be to go back and look at what actually happened in this particular case?
The essential facts are already in the public domain – and indeed placed there by the council’s head of the department:
1. The couple have fostered many times before, the quality of their fostering is praised by the council, and is explicitly stated not to be the cause of the children’s removal in this case.
2. The council department received an “anonymous tip-off” that the couple are members of UKIP. As if that is a crime?
3. The council department hold a meeting that decides to remove the children, purely because the fostering couple are “alleged” to be members of UKIP. No contact is made with the fostering couple until the social workers arrive to remove first the boy, then later the 2 girls. Some rather loose words are used in which UKIP are alleged to be racist.
Assuming those statements are true (and no one is denying them), you have only 2 possibilities to investigate: was this a politically inspired order from the elected councillors, or is it instead some unaccountable social workers applying their own poor judgement?
By Labour’s reaction, both nationally and also in the council, it does not appear to be a party political attack. So the likelihood is that the professional council workers have shown themselves to hold fundamentally illiberal and judgemental attitudes. Much as your own other post on this article shows. Just what is it about UKIP that inflames the illiberal and judgemental hard left so much?
(It is of no use replying with more factually incorrect assertions about UKIP’s policies on race, immigration, human rights, or gays. If you are interested, go to the UKIP website and actually read their policy manifestoes for every election since May 2010. Not a single mention of any of those issues, apart from an immigration policy based on numbers, not race or originating nation.)
Largely because all they actually talk about to the electorate is the EU! One of your little obsessions. Together with your devotion to liberal economics, you are exactly the sort of voter they would love – and a foreigner too, just to prove now non-racist they really are!
Suggest you do a search at the statements made. Lets start with Winston McKenzie. Then try Godfrey Bloom. Then you might want to look at the experience of ex UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire.
We know very little about this case – and neither should we.
I was born a British citizen, 8,000 miles away but by blood and by right. I can trace my ancestry on my father’s side to 1272 to the western isles of Scotland, and among other little family events, 3 generations of my direct family were hanged together from the walls of Edinburgh Castle for leading a rebellion against the King James IV in 1494. Their wives were forced to watch.
Yes, I have a Chilean mother, but you cannot call me a “foreigner”.
As far as your comments go on UKIP statements, you will find that neither McKenzie nor Bloom have anything at all to do with policy, nor with the latest case of Rotherham. Unless you wish me to start bringing in equally unrelated left wing people as exemplars of the sorts of idiocy sociologists and social services practitioners try to use as intellectual crutches, I suggest you stick with the statements actually made by people involved.
I have a suspicion (no insight or knowledge) that this series of events in the press will quickly turn into a tabloid hunt for examples of left wing idiocy, and an attempt to link stupid social services judgements (there are multiple) to the Labour Party. It could become nasty. Given the recent role played by the head of this department in Rotherham in the wider attempt to “downplay” the role of mostly Asian men in sex-grooming, it would perhaps be intelligent for the Rotherham Council to categorically cut her adrift right now. Pay her the payoff, and get rid of her. She is toxic in a political sense.
At long last.
A politician who stands up for principle and justice! Even against his own people and in the teeth of the Social Services.
I truly respect Mr Miliband for this. Well done!
The Leader of the Council immediately instigated an investigation.
If this keeps Respect out at the by-election, that’ll be the best outcome yet. Shame on the local Labour run Rotherham Council for this completely moronic decision! I am glad that mainstream MPs like Miliband and Gove rightfully condemned this, and acknowledge that UKIP are a legitimate party. Fostering is a must at a time like this.
Rotherham and and the rest of South Yorkshire has come into a little bit of a rough time recently. The Hillsborough disaster, Orgreave and the miners dispute, South Yorkshire Police. Rotherham child abuse allegations, Denis McShane expenses fiasco, the privatisation of public services, Doncaster Social Services and now Rotherham Council UKIP issue. It is very clear that the Conservative Party are successfully orchestrating some back yard Miliband, Balls, Cooper and Flint bashing, that is areas where Labour is strong. It is indeed clear that by Ed Miliband intervening into Rotherham he could have created the biggest own goal since being elected leader. The Children services in Rotherham has been under Labour control for the best part of 10 years. Who has been at the helm of childrens services during this time is likely to have answer questions. Another Doncaster perhaps.
But UKIP’s policies on issues like race and immigration, human rights, gay issues etc are virtually the same as that of the BNP
Why place them with this couple in the first place? If they hold the sort of views typical of UKIP members I have come across, I can certainly understand why they wouldn’t have been seen as suitable, but membership of the party alone isn’t enough.
However, I do not and will never regard UKIP as ‘mainstream’ – being elected does not make views ‘mainstream’
That view contrasts with “mainstream” Labour opinion.
“But UKIP’s policies on issues like race and immigration, human rights, gay issues etc are virtually the same as that of the BNP”
What utter tosh.
UKIP simply want to manage immigration, irrespective of race, on economic grounds. From my exprience of meeting UKIP supporters, they seem to be mostly just very traditional Tories who wouldn’t touch the BNP with a barge-pole.
Because its ‘respectable’ to back UKIP even though their policies are so similar to the BNP. They are just the BNP in blazers. They wouldn’t want to be seen openly supporting a far right party with a negative public image, so go for UKIP instead where they can express very similar values under the safety of something the media promotes as mainstream – even though it isn’t.
“Because its ‘respectable’ to back UKIP even though their policies are so similar to the BNP”
Oh dear, Social Services receive another kicking. They are people who enter their vocation – and it is truly a vocation – to try to make a difference. I wouldn’t presume to criticise them because I simply couldn’t do their work. The leader of the Council, as I understand it, has instigated an investigation. Assumptions are being made without the full knowledge. Gove in particular assumed an ‘ideological’ modus operandi, without knowledge of the full facts – and who is he to talk about ideological decisions?
Now what else have I read about Rotheraham and its child care services in the news recently?
Pity they didn’t look after those girls who are/were being groomed and used for the sexual gratifiction of those “ethinic minority” gangs with the same sort of attention they give to their political views of their fostering community. Maybe their own political views of the benefits of “multiculturalism” played a part in their warped decision making.
Working as a social worker is not like making widgets or garments – but then again, global capitalism knows all about that:
I’m getting pretty fed up with the way the BBC have been reporting this .Every news bulliten leads with “Labour run council” the Council are looking into it,Ed Miliband has condemned the decision. It is a decsion made by Social Services professionals from their own group think ,which could have happened at any Council.
Has Lynton Crosby started leaning on the BBC already
is there any subject on which Ed Milliband will ever express a clear opinion? Whenever anything contentious appears he appears te be congenitally unable to do anything other than demand an enquiry. He’ll probably demand an enquiry into why Victoria Pendleton was voted off strictly come dancing next on the grounds it discriminated against women. What a wuss
We don’t need uninformed ‘opinions’, thank you. We need an informed investigation.
Working as an investment banker isn’t like making widgets or garments either. I’m fairly sure that doesn’t make them immune to criticism, though.
Hahaha!!! Do you really want to compare social workers and investment bankers? I find that extraordinary.
No, I want to point out that the fact that a job is difficult or complicated does not preclude criticism when it’s done in a transparently inept manner.
None of those jobs that have been mentioned have the same order of complexity as social workers involved with vulnerable people. The lives of thousands of people – probably in Rotherham too – have been saved by social workers. To refer to investment bankers in this context is an absurdity. Suppositions are being made in this particular case. As for Joe DM, it is easy to criticise when you have probably never been engaged in the work (el salaam alaikum, btw). For myself, I’m just thankful that the service exists and has had the capacity to support so many people.
I cannot agree with Miliband having to investigate the actions of the Social services (unless we are talking about practical politics with an on-coming By-Election !!)
Onw wonders if this couyplw would have been willing to encourage to bring up these children in a multiculture environment ??
Again this couple have not been stopped from adopting children but ,just as I would not wish to see three catholic children being given up for adoption to C of E couple and hope that they would bring the children up as Catholics, there must be more care taken in allocating the children as their best interest must be the over-riding priority.
Everything Labour. Every weekday morning