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

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?’

Did you not read the stories I posted?

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.

1—The IRA owned illegal weapons.

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.

2—Self defence has not been criminalised in the UK.

When was the last time you carried a gun on the Tube?

As my fellow Brit pointed out, what Martin did wouldnt have been legal in some US states either.

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!).

1—It isnt emasculating to be opposed to fox hunting.

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...

2—You would sound more credible if you didnt post rubbish about the UK being conquered by Islam.

drip, drip, drip....

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 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!

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.

A lot of things are enshrined in the constitution, but that doesn't mean too much. The constitution is added to and removed from on a fairly constant basis. I'm pretty sure that's not how it was intended to work, but on both a theoretical and practical level that's exactly what happens.

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.

That's not what I meant. You don't sound like someone who supports freedom -- a Freeper, at FreeRepublic.

I'm dreadfully sorry I don't match up to your elevated level of ideological purity, but look man I'm not the one trying to take your precious liberty. I'm just pointing out a few uncomfortable facts about how that liberty is being assaulted and how it has to be defended. I don't like this any more than you do. Less in fact, I'm a paid up member of UKIP.

Yes, you're right. It's cultural. Much like accepting, then expecting cradle to grave socialism. And soon dhimmitude. How sad.

You're not in any position to point to a decay in British civilisation. Hey, the USA just reelected Obama for another four years, and you can't secure your own borders from a flood of immigrants that support racist organisations openly calling for half of the country to be annexed to "Aztlan". If you think your personal ownership of a dozen Glocks and Smith and Wessons or whatever is going to make any difference to any of that, you're delusional.

Look zipper...the criminals always automatically have the advantage, because they are the ones with the initiative. The only people who rob us on a daily basis do it with computer keyboards, not firearms. Armed robbery is relatively rare, even in crime hot spots like New York and Chicago. You don't expect someone to stick a gun in your stomach and demand your wallet every day you are traveling on the tube.

So, in that circumstance, in the UK I'd have to give him what he wanted. But the point is that if the same thing happened to you in the US you would have to do the same, because he would have the drop on you. This is not the wild west and you are not Billy the Kid. You cannot "beat him to the draw". In most cases, you carrying a gun means nothing more than the criminal gets another firearm as well as a wallet.

Now you might argue that the very fact that you are armed acts as a deterrent to you being robbed. Perhaps. But against that you could argue that knowing you are likely to be armed, a prospective robber might simply decide to plug you straight away to avoid any possible trouble. Even if you do deter him from robbing you, his desire for illicit gain does not go away. He'll probably simply pick on some other, more vulnerable member of society. That's not crime prevention...it's crime relocation.

Yes, because there is no crime in the UK.

Anyway, if there were (hypothetically speaking of course) then you could always call one of your unarmed policemen, who, when seconds count, are only minutes away. No worries mate, Big Brother got them frisking your dead body on CCTV!

---

Causes of gang violence cannot be solved by enforcement aloneDespite 1500 arrests under operation Trident, people still dying and current policy not making sustainable impact on gangs

On 1 August 2012, an early morning phone call left me stunned and numb. One of the most amazing women I have ever worked with, who has dedicated decades of her life to working with young people in the inner city, lost her son. He had been stabbed through the heart three days after his 16th birthday in an unprovoked attack....After the riots of 2011, we were told that one in five of the rioters was part of a gang.....We have kids attending some of our projects wearing stab-proof vests because they live in such fear of attack.....The vain hope that police can sort out gangs on their own, and the positive diversion of the Olympics this summer, has resulted in us losing focus on what is really required.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/28/causes-gang-violence-complex-enforcement

---

The gang war being waged on Britain's streets

In British cities, especially London, a street by street war is being fought......Unless you know what to look for, you wouldn't notice it but the casualties continue to mount, and no-one expects it to end soon.

---

And now, a salute to our former masters/currently emasculated brothers overseas:

That attitude is so sad!

And to think you only think the right to bear arms is only to protect against armed robbery, not that it isn't enough!

It's almost impossible to believe a FReeper, other than a troll, even from another country, would think that way! Truly sad. I don't even think I'll bother too much to address it, there are so many wrong assumptions, and so many indications of...yes...emasculation!

If Jay Leno did a man-on-the-street interview in San Francisco's Castro district, I'll bet even the most effeminate flaming queer would laugh in derision at the crazy victim-inclined mentality you are so proud of!

Now about that fox hunting...

No I dont think the right to bear arms is only to protect against armed robbery - I was only going on about that aspect because I was specifically replying to your argument about carrying weapons on the tube and the way criminals have "advantages" in gun-free society.

Of course there are many other reasons to bear arms. My reading of the US constitution makes it quite clear you have that right and that attempts by liberals to restrict that right are disingenous and frankly unconstitutional. The only point I was trying to make is that is the only reason you need to give for bearing arms. Arguments about whether it reduces crime rates or not (personally I dont think it makes much difference one way or another) are really moot.

I find it particularly telling that you equate not carrying firearms to "emasculation". I'm perfectly comfortable with my sexuality as it happens, but I understand if you are one of those people who has a need to holdand caress very large guns to prop up your masculinity.

I can't discuss your Jay Leno quote as it is a straw-man argument.

I don't know what the reference to fox hunting is about. I suspect you were talking to someone else not me. I have no views on the matter either way.

I find it particularly telling that you equate not carrying firearms to "emasculation".

You don't get it, and never will. It's only a symptom. Your country is already far down the road to serfdom. You were raised in that environment. You have allegiance to a queen, which is quaint but does nothing for your individual rights. Your government is not concerned with individual rights, it's only collective rights that matter. We are headed down a similar path to serfdom thanks to our own experiments in socialistic practices that resulted in half our population being composed of worthless peasants in only a couple of generations, but we still have millions that value individual rights over collective rights, unlike your country. You mock us as though we only want guns to bolster our self-image, but your perspective is fatally corrupted. Your country is already lost, we are trying to take ours back before it is similarly too late.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.