Anne obviously means that there may be more to the foster parents' background that makes simply being members of UKIP the tip of the iceburg.
Absolutely nothing to do with extra harm to the kids.
Bit surprised at you over that one, Less.
Ukip
- Thread starter gynn
- Start date
Anne obviously means that there may be more to the foster parents' background that makes simply being members of UKIP the tip of the iceburg.
Absolutely nothing to do with extra harm to the kids.
Bit surprised at you over that one, Less.
If that were so, the Social Services would have even more to answer for, since the family in question have apparently been approved foster carers for seven years. Besides I'm sure the media have been out and about digging for dirt and come up empty.
Seems to me to be an issue created by a crackpot PC jobsworth. The social services are quite good at preaching multiculturalism, equality and diversity but extremely poor at putting it into practice. This is out and out racism, just imagine the outcry if a white child were removed from a loving black foster family on the grounds of culture.
Don't forget this is fostering not adoption, these are emergency placements meant to temporarily protect kids from harm and keep them safe until a permanent solution is found.
basically these kids were removed because their foster carers want out of the EU and immigration cutting until this country can accomodate those it already has here.
mind you the way things are going with police cuts , council services cuts etc the UK may not be that an attractive prospect in a few years
social services seem to be unable to spot a problem when a child has bruises all over its body but the second someone caring for a child holds an opinion that differs to the fairy tail world do gooders live in the child is whisked away
mind you the way things are going with police cuts , council services cuts etc the UK may not be that an attractive prospect in a few years
social services seem to be unable to spot a problem when a child has bruises all over its body but the second someone caring for a child holds an opinion that differs to the fairy tail world do gooders live in the child is whisked away
My point is that we only know what's been reported in the press, as it stands it seems wrong but there may be other factors involved which we are not aware of - where are the press likely to have got the story from? Almost certainly not from Social Services who are also not allowed to defend their position in the media.
Not true at all!
Although individual workers are not allowed to make comment, Social Services as an entity is open to challenge and expected to give reasons for decisions. And they already have done, hence the one it has given....the political leanings of the foster parents!
You are looking for conspiracy theory when there so clearly isn't one in this case
yes it is due to the data protection act .they would go to jail.all we know they were ethnic minority kids.we dont know the evidence in which the social workers acted on.they cant say.maybe they were listening to david cameron Nigel Farage declares war on David Cameron over Ukip racism 'slur' - Telegraph 
yes it is due to the data protection act .they would go to jail.all we know they were ethnic minority kids.we dont know the evidence in which the social workers acted on.they cant say.maybe they were listening to david cameron Nigel Farage declares war on David Cameron over Ukip racism 'slur' - Telegraph
Do you even read the links you post before spouting your drivel?
God alone knows how you managed to link the Data Protection Act to this debacle because that particular law is not relevant to the points that are being raised.
You say 'they would go to jail'...who would? Everyone from social services, the whole of Rotherhams loony left Labour council, the kids, the foster parents?
We do know the evidence, we've known it all along and now we've had Joyce Thacker the PC social services jobsworth responsible admitting it and attempting to justify it.
Council defends taking foster children away from UKIP members - Telegraph
I know you're north of the border..but do try to keep up
Last edited:
Guinness - don't waste your time.
You can't put sense where there is none.
You can't put sense where there is none.
Is David Cameron a closet UKIP supporter because he appears to believe that multiculturalism has failed in the UK? Here is a speech of his BBC News - State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron
Cameron, like em all but more so, will lean in any direction, if he thinks its a vote catcher.
you dont know british law then any body who works with or works for any goverment department signs this and if you break it you go to jail simples .social security act social services act its all the same.if the press really wanted to investigate this they would put in a freedom of information act request but there is more to this than meets the eye.Do you even read the links you post before spouting your drivel?
God alone knows how you managed to link the Data Protection Act to this debacle because that particular law is not relevant to the points that are being raised.
You say 'they would go to jail'...who would? Everyone from social services, the whole of Rotherhams loony left Labour council, the kids, the foster parents?
We do know the evidence, we've known it all along and now we've had Joyce Thacker the PC social services jobsworth responsible admitting it and attempting to justify it.
Council defends taking foster children away from UKIP members - Telegraph
I know you're north of the border..but do try to keep up
Rubbish....there is absolutely no need for anyone to sign the Data Protection Act , its a law, its like saying you need to sign up to the Road Traffic Act.
'fraid its the dunces hat in the corner again for you
El thicko is probably confusing data protection with official secrets act.Rubbish....there is absolutely no need for anyone to sign the Data Protection Act , its a law, its like saying you need to sign up to the Road Traffic Act.
'fraid its the dunces hat in the corner again for you
you break the law you pay the consequences with your liberty and job that means you have to obey the law that means you have to agree to abide by the data protection act.simplesRubbish....there is absolutely no need for anyone to sign the Data Protection Act , its a law, its like saying you need to sign up to the Road Traffic Act.
'fraid its the dunces hat in the corner again for you
you break the law you pay the consequences with your liberty and job that means you have to obey the law that means you have to agree to abide by the data protection act.simples
Yup, they also have to agree to abide by the Road Traffic Act, the Immigration Act, the Telecommunications Act, the Parking and Waiting Act and the Live Music Act. The problem is that in the instance we are discussing, which is Social Services as an entity responding to these accusations, they are not relevant and neither is the Data Protection Act.
The Act that is relevant here is the Equality Act, which Social Services has most definitely breached. Unlikely that anyone in government or opposition will have the bottle to do anything about the overpaid PC civil servants that make these decisions. Which is yet another reason why people should vote UKIP next time.
simples
I knew there was something about Accyweb I didn't miss while I was in dock, and its just reared its stupid bigoted head again and you still can't spell Government right, you'd think that for somebody who likes the ram it down everybody's throat every two minutes you do us the courtesy of spelling the flaming thing right
So do dog stabbers.ha ha your years out of date