On Rotherham Council’s Decision to Remove Children from UKIP Foster Parents

A couple, who by all reports were exemplary foster parents, had three children removed from their care because the council discovered after an anonymous tip-off that they were members of UKIP.

There is so much ‘sinister’ in that sentence, I don’t know where to start. What’s worse, rather than sacking the social worker in question, launching an immediate enquiry and issuing an immediate, grovelling apology, the Council’s head of child services, Joyce Thacker suggested UKIP’s desire to limit immigration and end multiculturalism meant that a placement of ethnic minority children with UKIP members was against their “long-term cultural needs”. She went on to say

“These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children.”

When in a hole, you should stop digging, but instead she went on to suggest that the Family would be able to foster white children in future. Urgh.

The Labour party nationally has distanced itself from the Labour-controlled Rotherham council. My prediction: Joyce Thacker will need to call a head-hunter on Monday morning.

The fact is, this demonstrates as if more proof were needed, of the left-wing ‘long march through the institutions’ is nearly complete. A Marxist cultural hegemony exists in some councils, and in much of state education, in which exists a contempt for the family, a loathing of anything like of traditional values, and a deep intolerance of political dissent . Anything outside the left-wing world view is deemed inappropriate. The Tories are suspect and UKIP beyond the pale. And the children are being indoctrinated.

The Joyce Thackers of the world hate you, and everything you stand for. They want to destroy the institution of the Family because they want to make everyone dependent on the state. Mass immigration is desirable BECAUSE it destabilises communities and offends the traditionalist white working class. Widespread welfare dependency is desirable, because dependence gives the state power over people. This is why the benefits system is so complicated and therefore so toxic to the maintenance of stable families. Never ascribe to malice that which can be put down to incompetence, but the ‘problems’ Iain Duncan-Smith’s benefits reforms aim to resolve – the disincentives to parental co-habitation, for example do seem to be in line with Gramscian doctrine. For in their view, there can be no loyalties but to the state. The cold war isn’t over, not while the Joyce Thackers of this world are in charge of children’s lives.

Occasionally the mask slips, when they do something so grotesque, so offending to natural justice that people take a look at what is being done in their name. They won’t like what they see. The people are not Marxist, you see, but no-doubt Joyce Thacker puts this down to false consciousness.

11 replies
  1. John Mullan
    John Mullan says:

    I have sent the following email to Rotherham Councillors and Joyce Thacker.

    I am not from Rotherham but If I had time I would email all Rotherham Labour Councillors with my disgust and utter disbelief that these children were removed from the foster persons because the foster parents are members of a perfectly legal political party (UKIP).

    I hope the foster parents concerned sue your council and the individuals concerned. The action of the officers concerned, I suggest, has been and will be extremely damaging to the labour party in terms of election hopes, rightly so.

    Shame on you all.

    John Mullan

    Previous Labour Supporter – (no hope of fostering in the future then)

    Reply
  2. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    My prediction: Joyce Thacker will need to call a head-hunter on Monday morning.

    Don't think even Rotherham's multiculturists would condone harvesting the heads of UKIP members.

    Reply
  3. Niz Viz
    Niz Viz says:

    It would be nice if the voice of the ordinary person was heard. Unfortunately that will never be the case, at least not in my life-time. It is frieghtening that we allow the Joyce Thackers of this world so much control. My political allegience is quite neutral when it comes to multi-culturalism but Rotherham's stance on positive discrimination should be brought into question, and the people who vote these councils in should have a long hard look at their own morals and beliefs.

    Reply
  4. Henry Crun
    Henry Crun says:

    I have sent a similar email to Rotherham council:

    I listened to a news report this morning regarding Rotherham council's decision to remove three children from foster care because the council had been "tipped off" that the foster parents belonged to a political party.

    This beggars belief.

    Please answer the following:

    1. Would you remove the chioldren if the fosterers were members of the Labour Party?

    2. Would you removes the children if the fosterers were members of the Conservative Party?

    3 Would you removes the children if the fosterers were members of the LibDem Party?

    4. Is UKIP a legal political party?

    5. Are foster parents vetted for their political allegiance?

    How dare you decide the basis for fostering be dependent on a person's political views. This is not North Korea. This is not what taxpayers expect when their hard-earned money is paid out in the form of council tax. Shame on you!!

    I have sent a similar email to Labour Party HQ. I know where my vote will be going in the next election – the sooner this country is rid of the stain of type of socialism as exercised by Ms Thacker and her ilk, the better.

    Yours sincerely.

    Henry Crun

    Reply
  5. jimbob
    jimbob says:

    I'm staggered at the logic of Joyce Thacker in defending this policy. Self evidently the couple wouldn't foster 'ethnic' children if they had a problem with it!? Or does Rotherham Council think that they were fostering them just for the purposes of shipping them abroad? Let's assume these children were happy and in a stable enviroment; then ripping them away from this must surely constitute a form of child abuse! It's so depressing that the care services seem to display so little common sense and humanity in all aspects of the adoption process.

    Reply
  6. dalethecaptain
    dalethecaptain says:

    I often joke about the Socialist Republic of Yorkshire, it damn well exists thats for sure!

    This is the same Rotherham Council that covered up the sexual abuse of white girls by asian men, because that is obviously acceptable behaviour, however being a UKIP member and wanting to keep out the serial rapists and the dregs of society is most undesirable.

    Reply
  7. James
    James says:

    Hard to believe that the same guy that shouts ‘racist’ at anything and everything to the right of David Cameron had this article on his blog.

    By the way, did you e er write about Rotherham Council’s decision to per,it the mass rape of white girls? Did you call the perpetrators of that crime racist?

    Didn’t think so. Pussyhole.

    Reply
    • James
      James says:

      Reason why people ‘band on and on’ is because the same agencies that were supposed to protect the young girls, were compliant in the crime. Nothing like that has happened on the same grand scale before, involving so many victims. And I’m not sure if the are ‘usually racists’ when by that you also include the actual perpetrators of the crime.

      If you knew anything about me personally, Malcolm, you’d know I don’t judge people on account of their race. I’ve shared train journeys with people from different racial backgrounds. I suppose however, you are quite happy howling at the moon about people whose lives you know nothing about.

      Speaking of caps, I’d say the cap of pussyhole suits you well. Pussyhole.

      Reply
      • James
        James says:

        Also, you’re the one who banged on and on about UKIP supposedly being racist as if they are the only racists in the UK, which they aren’t. That was sort of my original point.

        You just projected the fact that you’re a hypocrite in your reply to my post.

        PS: You are a pussyhole.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply to John Mullan Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *