Foster parents 'stigmatised and slandered’ for being members of Ukip

The Daily Telegraph ^ | 10:00PM GMT 23 Nov 2012 | By Sam Marsden

[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 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?’

[Vanders9]

By "vibrant" I mean it is going forward, gaining in confidence, growing in numbers, wealth and technological achievement. I make no comment on its morality. Although they do not tolerate abortion, homosexuality, drug use, alcoholism, blasphemy in the name of art, public lewdness, larceny or any of the other wonderful achievements that is all that Western Civilisation has come up with in the last half a century.

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?

[Sherman Logan]

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.

[Sherman Logan]

we really can build heaven on earth, if only we were all more loving, more tolerant, more accepting, and so on.

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.

[miss marmelstein]

Islamists are also considering micro-chipping women in Saudi Arabia so they don't leave home without one of their chivalrous male relatives knowing about it. I suppose you find a silver lining in that?

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.

[garbanzo]

Thoughtcriminals...welcome to life in Airstrip One...

[Vanders9]

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.

[Vanders9]

I'm fully aware of the horrors of Islamic society, particularly the full sharia variations, and I have no desire to share in them. I'm merely pointing out that we aren't as morally ahead of them as we would like to think.

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".

[miss marmelstein]

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?

[Vanders9]

Exactly right. And as Humans are generally ornery contrary critters there are always going to be some who have to be "silenced", one way or another.

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

[Sherman Logan]

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.

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.

[zipper]

Gun ownership has NEVER been common in the UK

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)?

[Winniesboy]

the demise of fox hunting

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.

[zipper]

I never said fox hunting was gone, it's just more restricted, a victim of the same emasculating culture that is gradually allowing the muzzies to enslave you in the caliphate.

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html

---

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

---

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)[1] 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.[2]

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".[9] 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.[12] 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".[13] However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.[14]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

---

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.

[Winniesboy]

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.

[zipper]

Yes, the right to self-defence here isn’t without some legal constraints and qualifications

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).

[Vanders9]

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?

[Vanders9]

Tell that to the IRA, or victims thereof.

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.

[Vanders9]

You’re right.

[zipper]

It’s enshrined in the Constitution.

You know, the one we wrote after revolting against our colonial masters.

[zipper]

ME: 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.

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.