Skip to comments.Foster parents 'stigmatised and slanderedí for being members of Ukip
Posted on 11/24/2012 3:23:34 AM PST by Eurotwit
A couple had their three foster children taken away by a council on the grounds that their membership of the UK Independence Party meant that they supported racist policies.
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 that their views on immigration made them unsuitable carers.
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.
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 childrens 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought. These are not worth fighting for? How many in the past have made the ultimate sacrifice in order to obtain freedom...and now? I have had enough. If that social worker came to MY door, they would have paid dearly.
OH! On the surface that is just like communist Russia. If you were a card carrying member of the party, your sins were overlooked.
Another example of the race card used to censor political expression.
It all started with them losing their gun freedoms.
Our second amendment is the one that guarantees all the others.
The UKIP needs to go hard at those who made this decision. Bury them in lawsuits and confrontational attendance at open council meetings and anything else that can be done to combat the thought police.
Yeah. Or Chicago.
What an amazing thing. The UK has become the USSR.
Your second amendment doesn't actually guarantee anything, because force is useless unless it is applied. In other words, what really counts is the will of the people. Think on it. You can have all the guns you like, if people are not prepared to USE them to defend liberty they guarantee nothing.
What is really killing both the UK and the US (and western civlisation in general) is the kind of attitude amongst the polical elites as evidenced by this article. A growing number of people either despise the system, or at the least take its strength and wealth and power for granted. They see it all around them and they think it will last forever. They don't realise that it requires hard work, tough decisions and strength to hold it all together (or they are too lazy to bother).
When culture's lose their self-respect they become rotten and decadent and eventually will be superceded by younger, more vibrant societies. In the case of Asia the Chinese. In Europe most likely Islam. In America probably hordes of Hispanics. Get used to it bunkie, cos its probably too late to stop it from happening.
I am not a fan of racism. I think it is ignorant and unscientific.
But racism has become the greatest modern taboo, so that even mildly racist beliefs are stigmatized as the worst possible sins and crimes.
Which is just stupid. Mild discomfort around members of other “races” is the worst possible sin? Really? Worse than mass murder or child molestation? Really?
Especially when the denounced racism is invariably uni-directional. Racism against white people is not only acceptable, it is encouraged.
Liberals, for unknown and illogical reasons, believe that peace and prosperity are the default condition, and insist that any deviation from this condition must be explained, with blame usually assigned to interference by evil conservatives.
In actual fact, of course, poverty and war are mankind's default conditions. Peace and prosperity, where they have existed, which has been only rarely in human history, do so only because they have been built and maintained via a great deal of effort.
I think this unconquerable and unquestioned belief that good things occur naturally, while bad things are produced only by human malevolence, explains most of why liberals believe and act as they do. All they have to do is use the power of the state to destroy the resistance of the bad people, and utopia will result.
Soon to come to a town near you.
Sherman Logan: “Racism against white people is not only acceptable, it is encouraged.”
True. Sexism against males is also not only acceptable, it’s encouraged and persuasive. What can one do about it? I don’t know.
Visit Europe now, before all of the great cathedrals are mosques.
Today’s PC commissars simply will not permit or condone a successful country made up of the original white European inabitants. From Canada to Norway to the UK to the USA, the PC commissars demand that millions of hostile and illiterate third-worlders simply must be allowed to immigrate.
Eventually, these PC Quisling traitors use this demographic invasion to literally change the face of the national electorate, wiping out the possiblility that the original European inhabitants will ever be able to control their own destinies as they had for centuries and millenia.
Whites simply must not be allowed to be successful, on their own. White societies must be opened up, broken, and destroyed. Nobody is demanding that the Japanese bring in millions of Somalis or Nigerians, and make them full citizens with govt affirmative action programsto guarantee their “success.”
But in every predominantly white nation, this is the case. White nations must not be allowed to succeed.
Why? Does their success highlight the utter failure of many third-world nations and their cultures?
Islam is vibrant??? It’s maniacal, not vibrant. That’s like calling the Nazis “vibrant.”
And, rest assured, most folks on FR just LOVE to use their guns.
Consistently, invariably, and with monotonous regularity.
Of course, to simply observe that fact is racist. To articulate it is hate speech.
To be equally stupid and useless is tolerance.
Soon the Democrats and the GOPe will outlaw conservatism.
Liberalism is essentially a secular, humanist movement. They blasphemously believe, most of them no doubt subconsciously, that we really can build heaven on earth, if only we were all more loving, more tolerant, more accepting, and so on. And this is very well and good and very difficult to argue against, until you realise the root of this argument is built upon a fundamentally incorrect appreciation of Human nature, and therefore it will fail. Not all liberals are atheists or agnostics of course. In fact probably most of them aren't, but its hard to square their utopian vision for Humanity with the clear descriptions of the depraved nature of Man propounded by Christianity (and, in fact, pretty much all the other major world religions too now I think on it).
I agree completely with your post, and in fact the theory you propound in paragraph three puts it very clearly and in a way I had not considered before. So thanks a lot for that.
Prejudice and bigotry, as typified by off colour jokes, bias at work or in social situations, and so on, have always existed and still exist to this day. Its just that certain peoples and groups are off-limits now. That, of course, makes it perfectly ok.... /s
Folks on FR may love to use their guns, but folks on FR make up a very small proportion of the population. Do you honestly think the majority of your compatriots will rise up and defy tyranny? Maybe, if it was a direct attack. But it wont be. It will be slow, and drawn out, concession by concession, each small new demand paving the way for the next, and eventually one day they will look around and realise the nation they knew has gone and they didnt even notice it, and they will be castigated for even pointing it out. Think on it. The USA has been on the road to socialist fascism for years - decades in fact. How many people have sprung to arms so far?
Thanks. But mankind’s default condition is more than poverty and war. Should have added in tyranny and slavery.
This line of thought got me to thinking about the old saw, “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” which is of course true.
And it struck me that in today’s world, this might more accurately be put as, “The perfect is the most deadly enemy of the good.”
The USA and the western societies that have sheltered behind it for the last 60 years have provided, objectively, greater prosperity and simultaneously greater individual freedom than any other in all human history.
However, problems remain, and therefore a majority of the citizens of these societies seem bent on their “fundamental transformation,” with the likely though not perhaps inevitable result that they will lose either their freedom or their prosperity or both.
Since these societies aren’t perfect, they must be destroyed. The perfect is therefore the most deadly enemy of the pretty damn good.
A lovely idea until you realize what is necessary to enforce these ideas on those you don't find adequately cooperative. The catch here is the word "all." No dissent can be tolerated or the whole thing falls apart.
Just look at the increasing demands that those who disagree with enforced "tolerance" towards the "gay agenda" be silenced.
If they are going to have tolerance for all, they must by definition enforce it by being intolerant of those who aren't adequately tolerant. In fact, they will quickly move beyond requiring tolerance, in its true meaning, and enforce acceptance and even celebration. Eventually even silent acquiescence will not be enough, they will try to enforce open and outspoken approval.
As for Americans who own guns standing up for themselves, I'll remind you about 9/11. The first plane crashed into the Towers with (as far as we know), no one storming the cockpit. Then it happened again. By the third time, passengers on flight 93 knew about the other terrorist attacks. They resisted. Since then, Americans and Europeans have taken it upon themselves to restrain crazy Muslims on airplanes. People wake up and learn. And certainly the gun owners of America will be the first ones to come awake.
Thoughtcriminals...welcome to life in Airstrip One...
hmm..interesting thought. We are the most advanced and enlightened civilisation that has ever existed, and yet of course we cannot be perfect. In trying to achieve that perfection, we will destroy what we have. Logical, and I fear perhaps true.
The problem with your second statement is that Americans and Europeans have not taken it upon themselves to restrain crazy muslims on airplanes. In fact most of the "enlightened" ** societies specifically forbid checking on muslims on planes because that would be "racial profiling". Personally my answer would be that if Muslims dont like to be discriminated against they should do something to restrain their co-religionists who want to blow things up.
** Enlightened, from the ancient persian meaning "soft in the head".
I agree that AIRLINES are stupidly allowing monsters to board their planes. My point was that ordinary people are busily subduing miscreants on board. Who can forget that man who stopped the “underwear bomber” from setting fire to the plane?
The problem with being absolutely sure you are right (even in the pursuit of virtue) is that by definition anyone who disagrees with you must be absolutely wrong, and probably evil. Idealists always end up as tyrants. For a good example of how this can work, look up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5rceb4-hQ&feature=related
I get your point, but am not entirely sure I agree.
I think the issue is not so much one of being absolutely sure I am right, but rather of whether I am arrogant enough to assume I have the right to force others to agree.
I think it's pretty clear the Founders were absolutely sure they were right that all men are created equal, but that belief by definition insulated them from a compulsion to impose their opinions on others.
I'm pretty sure it is at least as much what you believe in as it is how strongly you believe in it.
Tell that to the IRA, or victims thereof. Or follow the demise of fox hunting, and the criminalization of self-defense in the UK, it tells the tale of "stolen" rights, as we NRA members have carefully noted.
Your second amendment doesn't actually guarantee anything, because force is useless unless it is applied
What's this "your second amendment" condescension?
You somehow don't sound like one of us -- Freepers that have sworn an oath to defend it.
Ever heard of the Battle of Athens (TN)?
If you'll excuse the somewhat overdone quotation, reports of the 'demise' of foxhunting are much exaggerated. Hunts are, in fact, flourishing: and now the new season has begun, I'm regularly encountering our local hunt out and about at weekends, with more support than ever, judging by the number of horseboxes. All that has changed is that it's now illegal to use the hounds for the actual kill. As a result - and ironically given your comments about guns - the fox is now despatched with a rifle, rather than by the hounds, at the end of the hunt. A rifle? In Britain? Yes...the weapons used in country field sports (shotguns and a variety of hunting rifles) have never been banned, and are now legally owned in numbers as large as any time in history.
Oh, and self-defence is not, and never has been, 'criminalized', as has been repeatedly and painstakingly explained here over the years by British Freepers.
Yes we wouldn't want those poor little foxes to have to endure the cruel bites from a dog! How 'inhumane' that would be! LOL
G-d forbid one of those foxes should intrude into your house and you shot it -- then you'd be arrested for self-defense! LOL
Try concealing that long rifle (for hunting only!) into London in your trenchcoat, since you can't carry a pistol, and see what kind of reception you get! Or a knife (like surely only a 'terrorist' would do!).
Come on down to my state -- I can carry my 9mm or my HK 40S&W with me around town -- concealed! I can go plunking at the local range with my AR-15. I train with the local sheriff's department on their tactical range with some of my pistols or my Berelli M4 tactical shotgun. If someone breaks into my house they'll more likely end up DEAD from a round to the middle of their forehead than not -- and the police would pat me on the back for it!
UK: Self Defense In Your Own Home Is Illegal TV Star Warned Over Waving Knife At Intruder
...Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal.
Defenseless British citizens are attacked in their own homes by violent burglars every 30 Minutes
A householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes. . . According to the BCS, householders came face-to-face with burglars in 20 per cent of domestic burglaries last year. . . Of the burglaries in which the victim came face-to-face with the intruder, violence was either used or threatened in 59 per cent of crimes. . . It was actually used in 40 per cent of cases. . . Tories estimated that householders came face-to-face with burglars in 57,000 20 per cent of burglaries. . . Of these, 23,000 resulted in the burglar using violence against the householder.
To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.
Yes, home self-defense is not 'criminalized' in the UK as long as you only use 'proper government-approved methods':
Anthony Edward "Tony" Martin (born 1944) is a farmer from Norfolk, England, who in 1999 killed one burglar and wounded another who had both entered his home. He was convicted of murder, replaced with manslaughter on appeal, and as a result became a cause célèbre, and polarised opinion in the United Kingdom.
On 23 August 1999, Martin was charged with the murder of Barras, the attempted murder of Fearon, "wounding with intent to cause injury" to Fearon, and "possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life". Martin did not hold a valid Shotgun Certificate (licence), let alone the more restrictive Firearms Certificate he would have needed to posess the high-capacity pump-action Winchester shotgun.
English law permits one person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used. The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm". However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommended minimum term to serve of 9 years, reduced to 8 years by the Lord Chief Justice.
He served 2/3 of a reduced five year sentence. Sadly, we have some of the same injustices here in the USA -- as in George Zimmerman's case.
For every one of the hard cases you cite there have been others (less controversial, and thus less widely reported) in which force, including lethal force has been used in self-defence without prosecution, let alone conviction. Yes, the right to self-defence here isn’t without some legal constraints and qualifications - ‘anything goes’. I’m told that it isn’t in the U.S. either. There are certainly differences, in some cases wide differences, between the two countries in the nature and extent of those constraints; and indeed, as I understand, between different State jurisdictions in the U.S.
We could argue till the cows come home about the merits or defects of those various constraints and qualifications, and not for one moment am I going to argue that the law on this subject in Britain is perfect and never gets it wrong. Indeed, the present government has announced its intention to introduce further legislation to clarify some of the legal ambiguities which have caused disquiet in a few high-profile cases.
What is emphatically false, however, is your original blanket statement that ‘self-defence has been criminalised’. The right to self-defence has been enshrined for centuries in both statute and common law, and remains so.
A profound understatement -- makes me want to watch "European Vacation" again! LOL
What is emphatically false, however, is your original blanket statement that self-defence has been criminalised
It was definitely criminalized for Mr. Martin. Did you not read the stories I posted? Or perhaps your laws and the enforcement of those laws are opposite endeavors, as they often can be here.
In America, a man's home is his castle (at least in red states, can't speak for the commies in blue states).
In other words, it isnt enshrined at all, in all of the US. Wake up man...force is useless unless it can or will be applied. Theoretically, yes you can carry a gun in the US. Theoretically, yes, your home is your castle. Practically though, in the US of today, if you use that gun against the wrong person at the wrong time you will be in so much trouble cf George Zimmerman. Self-defence was criminilized for him too wasn’t it?
I would do, no problems. Most people in the UK do not own firearms, never have done, don't want to, and have never felt the need to. Its a cultural thing, and I think I know more about it than you do.
What's this "your second amendment" condescension? You somehow don't sound like one of us -- Freepers that have sworn an oath to defend it.
The explanation is simple. Its not my second amendment because I'm not a US citizen, so I haven't sworn any oath to defend it.
It’s enshrined in the Constitution.
You know, the one we wrote after revolting against our colonial masters.
YOU: The explanation is simple. Its not my second amendment because I'm not a US citizen, so I haven't sworn any oath to defend it.
That's not what I meant. You don't sound like someone who supports freedom -- a Freeper, at FreeRepublic.
I would do, no problems. Most people in the UK do not own firearms, never have done, don't want to, and have never felt the need to. Its a cultural thing, and I think I know more about it than you do.
Yes, you're right. It's cultural. Much like accepting, then expecting cradle to grave socialism. And soon dhimmitude. How sad.
I'm only too familiar with all those stories, which have frequently been posted here (usually in lurid tabloid prose little connected to the facts). All demonstrate that what is and what is not 'self defence' is not too easy to define when confronted with the messiness of a real life sequence of events. To take the most well-known example, that of Tony Martin, for example. He was convicted after shooting in the back somebody who was running away from his property. (I'm told that would have landed him in trouble in more than one US state jurisdiction). Even then, the judge in his summing up described the case as finely balanced, and it was only carried by a majority verdict. The verdict was further reduced on appeal from murder to manslaughter - something you don't mention. Martin is not a very convincing martyr, as anybody taking the trouble to examine the facts of the case will readily discover.
1—The IRA owned illegal weapons.
2—Self defence has not been criminalised in the UK. Stop allowing a tiny minority of controversial cases to give you a misunderstanding of the rights and laws here. What gets posted on FR gives a false impression.
BTW, in Sept 2008, I was personally a victim of crime in which I exercised my (supposedly non existant) right of self-defence. So I can tell you the real facts of that issue even more than Vanders.
Ms Klass was not breaking the law when she waved her knife. That was the stupidity of a young copper who clearly dosent know the law.
Tony Martin, much as I have the greatest sympathy for him, shot a fleeing man in the back at some distance, which the court deemed wasnt within the scope of ‘reasonable self defence’.
As my fellow Brit pointed out, what Martin did wouldnt have been legal in some US states either. People should remember that when bashing the Limeys. I might add that on the basis of the Martin and another few cases, both the Labour and current Tory/Lib Dem govt have STRENGTHENED the right to self defence.
As I said, a lot of the facts about UK self defence posted here are anything but. They are myth.
As I said, I KNOW they are, from personal experience.
1—It isnt emasculating to be opposed to fox hunting.
I am a conservative, have no Disneyfied idea of foxes, as grew up partly on a Scottish farm, I am a gun owner, and I served 7 years in HM’s Forces. I know people involved in fox hunts, and have lived next to at least two of the regular hunts.
Yet I oppose fox hunting. It is barbaric, and is not about controlling numbers, or culling (neither of which I have any problem with), but is purely sport. A bloodsoaked sport, which BTW a CONSERVATIVE govt report over 20 years ago proved is actually complete rubbish at keeping fox numbers down.
So not only is it barbaric, it is not effective. If you want to get rid of foxes, then do it properly.
2—You would sound more credible if you didnt post rubbish about the UK being conquered by Islam.
3—I really wouldnt go around criticising the level of violence in other people’s countries mate. The UK still looks like a crime free paradise compared with America.
I see the second string has shown up.
Yes, illegal! In "gun-free" and "gun-restricted" societies the criminals automatically have the advantage; i.e. Chicago.
2Self defence has not been criminalised in the UK.
When was the last time you carried a gun on the Tube?
I think it would be in most or maybe all states, as long as it happened indoors. If it happened outside, then you'd have to drag the perp indoors, then it would be 'legal'.
Mr. Martin should have been given a medal instead of serving over three years. So should George Zimmerman, whose defense fund I contributed to personally (and whose shameful politically-motivated prosecution has not been concluded yet!).
Yet the people who oppose it are emasculated, as are the people here who oppose the sport of shooting whether for pelts or food, or WHATEVER. Who the f*** are you to tell me what to do on my private property, or on property where I have permission? Sheesh! You and those PETA nutcases...
2You would sound more credible if you didnt post rubbish about the UK being conquered by Islam.
drip, drip, drip....
3I really wouldnt go around criticising the level of violence in other peoples countries mate. The UK still looks like a crime free paradise compared with America.
I don't live in Chicago, we are very safe (and armed) where I live. And we love our guns and freedom! Don't tread on me!
I have never carried one.
Then again, I dont live in a country so violent, I need one on public transport. Having to walk about armed isnt something I would boast about mate.
1—I have no objection to hunting for food or pelts, none whatsoever. Its hunting purely for sport I find barbaric.
2—British fox hunts take place across public land. Thats the difference.
3—I am not an animal rights nutter. Nor am I just because I find hunting foxes abhorrent. I also find bear baiting, badger baiting, dog fighting all horrific. But then so do most decent people. Does that make us PETA nutters?.
BTW, we dont have PETA.
4—Good for you. Here’s a secret: so is where I live. And so is most of Britain. As an American, I think you would be amazed how peaceful it is.
In the final analysis the constitution is words on a page. Unless the will to support it exists it means nothing, and that will is what is under attack. That is why Jefferson talked about the need for the people to be moral, and why he said the tree of liberty needs to be watered periodically with the blood of patriots and tyrants (or at least I hope that's what he meant by that). He knew that the struggle didnt end with the revolution, and he knew that it never would.