Wales’ Ukip MEP blasts council in fostering racism row

Campaign Series: ANGER: Wales MEP John Bufton ANGER: Wales MEP John Bufton

UKIP MEP for Wales John Bufton has blasted accusations of racism levelled against his party this weekend as “abhorrent”.

The news that two fosterers had children removed from their care in Rotherham because they were members of Ukip has caused a furore in the press ahead of crucial by-elections in the town this Thursday.

John Bufton said: “this incident should shock and appal everyone involved in politics. To use accusations of racism ahead of crucial by-elections is utterly abhorrent, especially when the real victims in this situation are the three children who have been needlessly uprooted from a stable family.

“For years it may have suited other parties and certain members of the media to tarnish Ukip with accusations of “xenophobia” or “racism” in order to scaremonger among potential voters.

“It is both ignorant and dangerous to conflate immigration policy, the basis for these recent accusations, with racism and disables frank and open dialogue on this very important topic.

“I would never be a member of any organisation whose views on race were in any way tainted. I find racism to be the vilest of prejudices. I am of German parenthood and still have many family members living near Hanover. However I believe that Britain should not be a member of the EU and that open border immigration policy puts a significant strain on society and our welfare system, concerns shared by a great many British voters. “

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:59pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Katie Re-Registered says...

But UKIP are definitely against same-sex marriage as opposition to it is a stated part of their manifesto. So, that makes them homophobic and homophobia is equally as bad as racism. Can you imagine the (justified) outcry if a political party believed in implementing a policy to stop people of different races getting married?!

Also, UK 'Independence' Party is something of an ironic misnomer considering their curiously close links with the tea party groupings in the USA. So what would UKIP do if it got in power to make the UK 'independent': why, take us out of Europe and into a satellite of a Republican-led United States, that's what - as - surprise, surprise - their policies are strangely identical(!)
But UKIP are definitely against same-sex marriage as opposition to it is a stated part of their manifesto. So, that makes them homophobic and homophobia is equally as bad as racism. Can you imagine the (justified) outcry if a political party believed in implementing a policy to stop people of different races getting married?! Also, UK 'Independence' Party is something of an ironic misnomer considering their curiously close links with the tea party groupings in the USA. So what would UKIP do if it got in power to make the UK 'independent': why, take us out of Europe and into a satellite of a Republican-led United States, that's what - as - surprise, surprise - their policies are strangely identical(!) Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Cymru Am Beth says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
Well said.
absolutely agree with your comment.
Who the h**l do these social workers think they are?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]Well said. absolutely agree with your comment. Who the h**l do these social workers think they are? Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice'

Well you might but I certainly would not.

'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'.

As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join.

I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto:

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe?

I feel sorry for the kids in this story.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice' Well you might but I certainly would not. 'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'. As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join. I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto: Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe? I feel sorry for the kids in this story. Howie'
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice'

Well you might but I certainly would not.

'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'.

As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join.

I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto:

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe?

I feel sorry for the kids in this story.
Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice' Well you might but I certainly would not. 'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'. As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join. I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto: Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe? I feel sorry for the kids in this story.[/p][/quote]Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Mon 26 Nov 12

welshmen says...

I feel sorry for those foster parents, they gave care and love to venerable kids, and as i understand it for several years, , Ukip are a release valve for the LIB LAB CON right of center...
I feel sorry for those foster parents, they gave care and love to venerable kids, and as i understand it for several years, , Ukip are a release valve for the LIB LAB CON right of center... welshmen
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Mon 26 Nov 12

big grog says...

Katie, being against same sex marriage is not homophobic, a cursory search on Google will give you some evidence of Homosexuals who are against same sex marriage, does that make them homophobic?
Katie, being against same sex marriage is not homophobic, a cursory search on Google will give you some evidence of Homosexuals who are against same sex marriage, does that make them homophobic? big grog
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Mon 26 Nov 12

D Taylor says...

welshmen wrote:
I feel sorry for those foster parents, they gave care and love to venerable kids, and as i understand it for several years, , Ukip are a release valve for the LIB LAB CON right of center...
Actually they had the children for 8 weeks. The placement was an emergency and not intended to be long term.
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: I feel sorry for those foster parents, they gave care and love to venerable kids, and as i understand it for several years, , Ukip are a release valve for the LIB LAB CON right of center...[/p][/quote]Actually they had the children for 8 weeks. The placement was an emergency and not intended to be long term. D Taylor
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Mon 26 Nov 12

D Taylor says...

D Taylor wrote:
welshmen wrote:
I feel sorry for those foster parents, they gave care and love to venerable kids, and as i understand it for several years, , Ukip are a release valve for the LIB LAB CON right of center...
Actually they had the children for 8 weeks. The placement was an emergency and not intended to be long term.
Sorry misread your comment. Quite right they had been fostering for several years with no problems apparently. Copuncil were happy to leave these 3 children with them when they had to be taken into care in an emergency.
[quote][p][bold]D Taylor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: I feel sorry for those foster parents, they gave care and love to venerable kids, and as i understand it for several years, , Ukip are a release valve for the LIB LAB CON right of center...[/p][/quote]Actually they had the children for 8 weeks. The placement was an emergency and not intended to be long term.[/p][/quote]Sorry misread your comment. Quite right they had been fostering for several years with no problems apparently. Copuncil were happy to leave these 3 children with them when they had to be taken into care in an emergency. D Taylor
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Limestonecowboy says...

Will be interesting to see whether the whole picture is disclosed not just the excitable media headline version but due to its sensitive nature may not get to hear the actual facts of the case.
Will be interesting to see whether the whole picture is disclosed not just the excitable media headline version but due to its sensitive nature may not get to hear the actual facts of the case. Limestonecowboy
  • Score: 0

11:47pm Mon 26 Nov 12

D Taylor says...

No, this is an odd one. Director of Children's Services took legal advice before making the decision to remove the children from foster parents. So she must have been worried about what she was about to do. I would like to know the full story but suspect that it will never be told publically. I just hope that people keep placing the highest priority on the childrens' welfare. They shouldn't be pushed from pillar to post just to satisfy politicians.
No, this is an odd one. Director of Children's Services took legal advice before making the decision to remove the children from foster parents. So she must have been worried about what she was about to do. I would like to know the full story but suspect that it will never be told publically. I just hope that people keep placing the highest priority on the childrens' welfare. They shouldn't be pushed from pillar to post just to satisfy politicians. D Taylor
  • Score: 0

1:24am Tue 27 Nov 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice'

Well you might but I certainly would not.

'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'.

As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join.

I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto:

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe?

I feel sorry for the kids in this story.
Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.
If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice.

Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you.

As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice' Well you might but I certainly would not. 'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'. As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join. I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto: Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe? I feel sorry for the kids in this story.[/p][/quote]Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.[/p][/quote]If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you. As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts. Howie'
  • Score: 0

9:33am Tue 27 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice'

Well you might but I certainly would not.

'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'.

As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join.

I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto:

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe?

I feel sorry for the kids in this story.
Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.
If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice.

Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you.

As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.
Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. I've no issue with tax payers money spent on the 'jobless' but when I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits or they just acted like they weren't interested. Result, all bar one job went to Poles.
The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology which would probably never occur to anyone else or harm kids in any way. They put their own views before the well-being of the kids.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice' Well you might but I certainly would not. 'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'. As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join. I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto: Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe? I feel sorry for the kids in this story.[/p][/quote]Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.[/p][/quote]If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you. As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.[/p][/quote]Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. I've no issue with tax payers money spent on the 'jobless' but when I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits or they just acted like they weren't interested. Result, all bar one job went to Poles. The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology which would probably never occur to anyone else or harm kids in any way. They put their own views before the well-being of the kids. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice'

Well you might but I certainly would not.

'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'.

As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join.

I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto:

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe?

I feel sorry for the kids in this story.
Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.
If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice.

Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you.

As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.
Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. I've no issue with tax payers money spent on the 'jobless' but when I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits or they just acted like they weren't interested. Result, all bar one job went to Poles.
The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology which would probably never occur to anyone else or harm kids in any way. They put their own views before the well-being of the kids.
I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits'.

Why would paying £7.59 ph impact their benefits? unless of course you expected them to only work limited hours each week then it would and that is not there fault it's the systems fault that does not make allowances for casual workers. That does not make it a lifestyle choice but a choice born of necessity. I'm quite aware that there are people on benefits who have alternative sources of income and have no intention of getting a regular job but that's not living on benefits as a lifestyle choice, that's fraud and if they could not have an alternative income I would imagine they would soon start looking for work rather than stay on benefits of a few pounds a week..

'The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology'.

Strange that one because I have only ever heard once in my life (the recent Rotherham case) of Social workers removing foster kids from a family because the foster parents were members of a political party yet I have been told and read numerous story's of children being removed from parents who are drug addicts, yet you seem to think it proves your point somehow.

I represented a friend at a Child Protection meeting a few years ago and then some time later gave evidence in a related court case which involved many meetings with Social Workers and the Court Welfare Officer. The Social workers never put their personal views in front of the facts and acted in a professional and fair manner, at all times it was made clear that, rightfully, their overriding objective was the safety and welfare of the child involved.

Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition.

Sorry, I should have said the Tory led Coalition Government.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice' Well you might but I certainly would not. 'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'. As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join. I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto: Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe? I feel sorry for the kids in this story.[/p][/quote]Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.[/p][/quote]If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you. As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.[/p][/quote]Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. I've no issue with tax payers money spent on the 'jobless' but when I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits or they just acted like they weren't interested. Result, all bar one job went to Poles. The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology which would probably never occur to anyone else or harm kids in any way. They put their own views before the well-being of the kids.[/p][/quote]I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits'. Why would paying £7.59 ph impact their benefits? unless of course you expected them to only work limited hours each week then it would and that is not there fault it's the systems fault that does not make allowances for casual workers. That does not make it a lifestyle choice but a choice born of necessity. I'm quite aware that there are people on benefits who have alternative sources of income and have no intention of getting a regular job but that's not living on benefits as a lifestyle choice, that's fraud and if they could not have an alternative income I would imagine they would soon start looking for work rather than stay on benefits of a few pounds a week.. 'The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology'. Strange that one because I have only ever heard once in my life (the recent Rotherham case) of Social workers removing foster kids from a family because the foster parents were members of a political party yet I have been told and read numerous story's of children being removed from parents who are drug addicts, yet you seem to think it proves your point somehow. I represented a friend at a Child Protection meeting a few years ago and then some time later gave evidence in a related court case which involved many meetings with Social Workers and the Court Welfare Officer. The Social workers never put their personal views in front of the facts and acted in a professional and fair manner, at all times it was made clear that, rightfully, their overriding objective was the safety and welfare of the child involved. Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. Sorry, I should have said the Tory led Coalition Government. Howie'
  • Score: 0

10:23am Thu 29 Nov 12

coalpicker says...

Reading some of these comments it appears some would like to return to the
work house obscenity,The thought of what some children would go through when the rest of the kids found they had parents of the same sex doesn't bear thinking about,Contemplating the use of arable land to build houses to accommodate the thousands of foreigners entering our country on a daily basis is lunacy,with world population growth and climatic change food and water shortage an inevitable certainty, not controlling our borders is national suicide.The current practice of euthanasia via the Liverpool care path could be an answer but I doubt it.
Reading some of these comments it appears some would like to return to the work house obscenity,The thought of what some children would go through when the rest of the kids found they had parents of the same sex doesn't bear thinking about,Contemplating the use of arable land to build houses to accommodate the thousands of foreigners entering our country on a daily basis is lunacy,with world population growth and climatic change food and water shortage an inevitable certainty, not controlling our borders is national suicide.The current practice of euthanasia via the Liverpool care path could be an answer but I doubt it. coalpicker
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Dai Rear says...

Katie Re-Registered - Re-Registered as a drug addict? Nurse? Ah well, doesn't matter much.Your views don't seem to be shared by the voters in the 3 Northern Bye-elections, do they?
The artificial "homophobic" (irrational fear of things that are the same) word was made up by the hard left to conflate criminals who haunt public lavatories to attack men with those who feel a bit queasy about the subject, but it doesn't work, does it? Back to the drawing board. One day your revolution will come and you'll all have great jobs in the Stasi.
Katie Re-Registered - Re-Registered as a drug addict? Nurse? Ah well, doesn't matter much.Your views don't seem to be shared by the voters in the 3 Northern Bye-elections, do they? The artificial "homophobic" (irrational fear of things that are the same) word was made up by the hard left to conflate criminals who haunt public lavatories to attack men with those who feel a bit queasy about the subject, but it doesn't work, does it? Back to the drawing board. One day your revolution will come and you'll all have great jobs in the Stasi. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice'

Well you might but I certainly would not.

'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'.

As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join.

I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto:

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe?

I feel sorry for the kids in this story.
Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.
If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice.

Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you.

As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.
Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. I've no issue with tax payers money spent on the 'jobless' but when I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits or they just acted like they weren't interested. Result, all bar one job went to Poles.
The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology which would probably never occur to anyone else or harm kids in any way. They put their own views before the well-being of the kids.
I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits'.

Why would paying £7.59 ph impact their benefits? unless of course you expected them to only work limited hours each week then it would and that is not there fault it's the systems fault that does not make allowances for casual workers. That does not make it a lifestyle choice but a choice born of necessity. I'm quite aware that there are people on benefits who have alternative sources of income and have no intention of getting a regular job but that's not living on benefits as a lifestyle choice, that's fraud and if they could not have an alternative income I would imagine they would soon start looking for work rather than stay on benefits of a few pounds a week..

'The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology'.

Strange that one because I have only ever heard once in my life (the recent Rotherham case) of Social workers removing foster kids from a family because the foster parents were members of a political party yet I have been told and read numerous story's of children being removed from parents who are drug addicts, yet you seem to think it proves your point somehow.

I represented a friend at a Child Protection meeting a few years ago and then some time later gave evidence in a related court case which involved many meetings with Social Workers and the Court Welfare Officer. The Social workers never put their personal views in front of the facts and acted in a professional and fair manner, at all times it was made clear that, rightfully, their overriding objective was the safety and welfare of the child involved.

Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition.

Sorry, I should have said the Tory led Coalition Government.
Well for a start, two of the three job centre candidates that turned up for interview actually wanted 'less than 15 hours a week' due to the impact on their benefits. The posts were all full time. The third 'didn't believe he could cope with the regimented environment'. The Eastern Europeans had altogether different views and were all taken on. The fact is society has made it too easy to refuse work. The 1.2 Million EU migrants that have found employment in the UK in recent years all managed to find the 'jobs that don't exist'.

As for the social workers well we can all quote personal examples of that too. My mother managed a clinic for drug addicts, a surprising number of whom turned up with unwashed, unkempt kids. A couple of them who attacked my mother and tried to steal her bag at the clinic were arrested. At the court case some weeks later, the child was still with them. So the influence on that poor child was drug misuse and robbery with violence. Somehow I doubt politics mattered much to the junkies and I doubt it did to the murderers of baby P either. Wrong priorities Howie, wrong priorities.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice' Well you might but I certainly would not. 'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'. As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join. I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto: Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe? I feel sorry for the kids in this story.[/p][/quote]Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.[/p][/quote]If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you. As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.[/p][/quote]Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. I've no issue with tax payers money spent on the 'jobless' but when I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits or they just acted like they weren't interested. Result, all bar one job went to Poles. The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology which would probably never occur to anyone else or harm kids in any way. They put their own views before the well-being of the kids.[/p][/quote]I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits'. Why would paying £7.59 ph impact their benefits? unless of course you expected them to only work limited hours each week then it would and that is not there fault it's the systems fault that does not make allowances for casual workers. That does not make it a lifestyle choice but a choice born of necessity. I'm quite aware that there are people on benefits who have alternative sources of income and have no intention of getting a regular job but that's not living on benefits as a lifestyle choice, that's fraud and if they could not have an alternative income I would imagine they would soon start looking for work rather than stay on benefits of a few pounds a week.. 'The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology'. Strange that one because I have only ever heard once in my life (the recent Rotherham case) of Social workers removing foster kids from a family because the foster parents were members of a political party yet I have been told and read numerous story's of children being removed from parents who are drug addicts, yet you seem to think it proves your point somehow. I represented a friend at a Child Protection meeting a few years ago and then some time later gave evidence in a related court case which involved many meetings with Social Workers and the Court Welfare Officer. The Social workers never put their personal views in front of the facts and acted in a professional and fair manner, at all times it was made clear that, rightfully, their overriding objective was the safety and welfare of the child involved. Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. Sorry, I should have said the Tory led Coalition Government.[/p][/quote]Well for a start, two of the three job centre candidates that turned up for interview actually wanted 'less than 15 hours a week' due to the impact on their benefits. The posts were all full time. The third 'didn't believe he could cope with the regimented environment'. The Eastern Europeans had altogether different views and were all taken on. The fact is society has made it too easy to refuse work. The 1.2 Million EU migrants that have found employment in the UK in recent years all managed to find the 'jobs that don't exist'. As for the social workers well we can all quote personal examples of that too. My mother managed a clinic for drug addicts, a surprising number of whom turned up with unwashed, unkempt kids. A couple of them who attacked my mother and tried to steal her bag at the clinic were arrested. At the court case some weeks later, the child was still with them. So the influence on that poor child was drug misuse and robbery with violence. Somehow I doubt politics mattered much to the junkies and I doubt it did to the murderers of baby P either. Wrong priorities Howie, wrong priorities. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Mervyn James says...

Totally ridiculous, under the same criteria no conservative party member should be allowed to adopt children or look after disabled as carers either, because their whole policy is to deprive them of both financial and care support and a job.

I find objection to same-sex marriages irrelevant, they can get married via civil law already, it's not social workers business to tell people what they must accept.

If we are to deprive children of loving foster parents on colour, ethnicity. obesity, smoking, gender, drinking (Even in moderation), and now political party allegiance, they are all going to stay in care homes. All that matters is a stable home and loving carers, the rest is carp basically and PC nonsense. Giving the gross shortage of foster carers available this is going to doom many kids to no care or stability at all. They fail to tell you at 16 they kick these kids out on the street to fend for themselves,maybe social workers shouldn't be anywhere near these kids.....
Totally ridiculous, under the same criteria no conservative party member should be allowed to adopt children or look after disabled as carers either, because their whole policy is to deprive them of both financial and care support and a job. I find objection to same-sex marriages irrelevant, they can get married via civil law already, it's not social workers business to tell people what they must accept. If we are to deprive children of loving foster parents on colour, ethnicity. obesity, smoking, gender, drinking (Even in moderation), and now political party allegiance, they are all going to stay in care homes. All that matters is a stable home and loving carers, the rest is carp basically and PC nonsense. Giving the gross shortage of foster carers available this is going to doom many kids to no care or stability at all. They fail to tell you at 16 they kick these kids out on the street to fend for themselves,maybe social workers shouldn't be anywhere near these kids..... Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Totally ridiculous, under the same criteria no conservative party member should be allowed to adopt children or look after disabled as carers either, because their whole policy is to deprive them of both financial and care support and a job.

I find objection to same-sex marriages irrelevant, they can get married via civil law already, it's not social workers business to tell people what they must accept.

If we are to deprive children of loving foster parents on colour, ethnicity. obesity, smoking, gender, drinking (Even in moderation), and now political party allegiance, they are all going to stay in care homes. All that matters is a stable home and loving carers, the rest is carp basically and PC nonsense. Giving the gross shortage of foster carers available this is going to doom many kids to no care or stability at all. They fail to tell you at 16 they kick these kids out on the street to fend for themselves,maybe social workers shouldn't be anywhere near these kids.....
Wrong Mervyn. The Conservatives want to deprive people who don't deserve benefits of them. Didn't they and the LibDems agree to cap benefits at £26k? That's more than I get for working.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Totally ridiculous, under the same criteria no conservative party member should be allowed to adopt children or look after disabled as carers either, because their whole policy is to deprive them of both financial and care support and a job. I find objection to same-sex marriages irrelevant, they can get married via civil law already, it's not social workers business to tell people what they must accept. If we are to deprive children of loving foster parents on colour, ethnicity. obesity, smoking, gender, drinking (Even in moderation), and now political party allegiance, they are all going to stay in care homes. All that matters is a stable home and loving carers, the rest is carp basically and PC nonsense. Giving the gross shortage of foster carers available this is going to doom many kids to no care or stability at all. They fail to tell you at 16 they kick these kids out on the street to fend for themselves,maybe social workers shouldn't be anywhere near these kids.....[/p][/quote]Wrong Mervyn. The Conservatives want to deprive people who don't deserve benefits of them. Didn't they and the LibDems agree to cap benefits at £26k? That's more than I get for working. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Sat 1 Dec 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice'

Well you might but I certainly would not.

'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'.

As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join.

I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto:

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe?

I feel sorry for the kids in this story.
Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.
If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice.

Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you.

As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.
Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. I've no issue with tax payers money spent on the 'jobless' but when I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits or they just acted like they weren't interested. Result, all bar one job went to Poles.
The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology which would probably never occur to anyone else or harm kids in any way. They put their own views before the well-being of the kids.
I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits'.

Why would paying £7.59 ph impact their benefits? unless of course you expected them to only work limited hours each week then it would and that is not there fault it's the systems fault that does not make allowances for casual workers. That does not make it a lifestyle choice but a choice born of necessity. I'm quite aware that there are people on benefits who have alternative sources of income and have no intention of getting a regular job but that's not living on benefits as a lifestyle choice, that's fraud and if they could not have an alternative income I would imagine they would soon start looking for work rather than stay on benefits of a few pounds a week..

'The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology'.

Strange that one because I have only ever heard once in my life (the recent Rotherham case) of Social workers removing foster kids from a family because the foster parents were members of a political party yet I have been told and read numerous story's of children being removed from parents who are drug addicts, yet you seem to think it proves your point somehow.

I represented a friend at a Child Protection meeting a few years ago and then some time later gave evidence in a related court case which involved many meetings with Social Workers and the Court Welfare Officer. The Social workers never put their personal views in front of the facts and acted in a professional and fair manner, at all times it was made clear that, rightfully, their overriding objective was the safety and welfare of the child involved.

Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition.

Sorry, I should have said the Tory led Coalition Government.
Well for a start, two of the three job centre candidates that turned up for interview actually wanted 'less than 15 hours a week' due to the impact on their benefits. The posts were all full time. The third 'didn't believe he could cope with the regimented environment'. The Eastern Europeans had altogether different views and were all taken on. The fact is society has made it too easy to refuse work. The 1.2 Million EU migrants that have found employment in the UK in recent years all managed to find the 'jobs that don't exist'.

As for the social workers well we can all quote personal examples of that too. My mother managed a clinic for drug addicts, a surprising number of whom turned up with unwashed, unkempt kids. A couple of them who attacked my mother and tried to steal her bag at the clinic were arrested. At the court case some weeks later, the child was still with them. So the influence on that poor child was drug misuse and robbery with violence. Somehow I doubt politics mattered much to the junkies and I doubt it did to the murderers of baby P either. Wrong priorities Howie, wrong priorities.
'Well for a start, two of the three job centre candidates that turned up for interview actually wanted 'less than 15 hours a week' due to the impact on their benefits. The posts were all full time'.

So why did the job centre send people who wanted part time work for a full time job?

'The third 'didn't believe he could cope with the regimented environment'.

Obviously he/she has a problem. But nothing there that points to lifestyle choice.

Somehow I doubt politics mattered much to the junkies and I doubt it did to the murderers of baby P either. Wrong priorities Howie, wrong priorities.

I doubt if anything except where their next fix was coming from matters to any junkie.

I doubt it did to the murderers of baby P either. Wrong priorities Howie, wrong priorities.

Yes, quite and all the papers and various commentators let rip against Sharon Shoesmith who was subsequently tried and found guilty by the press and summarily sacked by Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families who was pandering to the press. Yet in a Court she was awarded nearly £500,000 when all the facts came out.

Social workers have a very difficult job, having to decide the fate of thousands of children and their family's daily, if they remove a child wrongly, look at the Cleveland child abuse scandal where the Social workers removed children from their parents because two experts, Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt, paediatricians at a Middlesbrough hospital told them the children were being abused when they weren't and the Social workers took the blame. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Yet quietly everyday they are taking those decisions, with little or no public support, and making a good job of them. To claim that they leave kids with junkies because it's somehow politically correct or on the whim of an individual Social Worker is just hyperbole.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice' Well you might but I certainly would not. 'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'. As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join. I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto: Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe? I feel sorry for the kids in this story.[/p][/quote]Even Labour admit that the increase in working age benefits they presided over are not sustainable and are unfair to working people. If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. If you can claim disability benefit, without a review for eight years, (I know one and he's playing golf twice a week), - lifestyle choice.They took the children in because that's what foster parents do. There was no suggestion of racism or bad parenting. It is fascinating however, that by the Social Services own admission, this was an 'emergency placement'. The children were safe and it was unlikely to be a long term arrangement. What did they imagine would happen? Systematic brainwashing? They leave kids with drug addicts for crying out loud. Like I said, they aren't inhabiting the real world.[/p][/quote]If you can be fully supported to live in central London whilst never having worked, then that is a lifestyle choice. Benefits are the same where ever you live. You quote London because of the high rental values but the amount that people have to live on, cash in their hand is the same where ever you live. For instance a jobless couple living in a £50 pw one bed flat in Merthyr would have their housing allowance paid direct and would receive £106pw between them to pay the rest of their bills, feed and clothe themselves. The same couple living in London might have their rent paid for them at £200 pw but would still be left with £106 pw between them in their hand to pay their bills, is that really a lifestyle choice or a life of purgatory. I know you hate to see tax payers money spent on the jobless but I'm afraid as long as your Tory Government are throwing people on the dole then they have to be kept and £106 pw to pay all the bills plus food, clothes etc is not the lifestyle choice that most people would want or aspire to, no matter what the Daily Mail tells you. As for Social workers they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If ever a group of professionals should be supported by the Public it's them but people would sooner condemn them rather than listen to the facts.[/p][/quote]Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. I've no issue with tax payers money spent on the 'jobless' but when I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits or they just acted like they weren't interested. Result, all bar one job went to Poles. The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology which would probably never occur to anyone else or harm kids in any way. They put their own views before the well-being of the kids.[/p][/quote]I tried to recruit agents for a call centre at £1.50/hour above minimum wage, the Job Centre sourced candidates that bothered to turn up for interview either gave 101 reasons why the hours were wrong, or would impact their benefits'. Why would paying £7.59 ph impact their benefits? unless of course you expected them to only work limited hours each week then it would and that is not there fault it's the systems fault that does not make allowances for casual workers. That does not make it a lifestyle choice but a choice born of necessity. I'm quite aware that there are people on benefits who have alternative sources of income and have no intention of getting a regular job but that's not living on benefits as a lifestyle choice, that's fraud and if they could not have an alternative income I would imagine they would soon start looking for work rather than stay on benefits of a few pounds a week.. 'The point about the Social workers is that being a drug addict is less of a problem than a political ideology'. Strange that one because I have only ever heard once in my life (the recent Rotherham case) of Social workers removing foster kids from a family because the foster parents were members of a political party yet I have been told and read numerous story's of children being removed from parents who are drug addicts, yet you seem to think it proves your point somehow. I represented a friend at a Child Protection meeting a few years ago and then some time later gave evidence in a related court case which involved many meetings with Social Workers and the Court Welfare Officer. The Social workers never put their personal views in front of the facts and acted in a professional and fair manner, at all times it was made clear that, rightfully, their overriding objective was the safety and welfare of the child involved. Tripe Howie. For a start, this isn't a Tory government it's a coalition. Sorry, I should have said the Tory led Coalition Government.[/p][/quote]Well for a start, two of the three job centre candidates that turned up for interview actually wanted 'less than 15 hours a week' due to the impact on their benefits. The posts were all full time. The third 'didn't believe he could cope with the regimented environment'. The Eastern Europeans had altogether different views and were all taken on. The fact is society has made it too easy to refuse work. The 1.2 Million EU migrants that have found employment in the UK in recent years all managed to find the 'jobs that don't exist'. As for the social workers well we can all quote personal examples of that too. My mother managed a clinic for drug addicts, a surprising number of whom turned up with unwashed, unkempt kids. A couple of them who attacked my mother and tried to steal her bag at the clinic were arrested. At the court case some weeks later, the child was still with them. So the influence on that poor child was drug misuse and robbery with violence. Somehow I doubt politics mattered much to the junkies and I doubt it did to the murderers of baby P either. Wrong priorities Howie, wrong priorities.[/p][/quote]'Well for a start, two of the three job centre candidates that turned up for interview actually wanted 'less than 15 hours a week' due to the impact on their benefits. The posts were all full time'. So why did the job centre send people who wanted part time work for a full time job? 'The third 'didn't believe he could cope with the regimented environment'. Obviously he/she has a problem. But nothing there that points to lifestyle choice. Somehow I doubt politics mattered much to the junkies and I doubt it did to the murderers of baby P either. Wrong priorities Howie, wrong priorities. I doubt if anything except where their next fix was coming from matters to any junkie. I doubt it did to the murderers of baby P either. Wrong priorities Howie, wrong priorities. Yes, quite and all the papers and various commentators let rip against Sharon Shoesmith who was subsequently tried and found guilty by the press and summarily sacked by Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families who was pandering to the press. Yet in a Court she was awarded nearly £500,000 when all the facts came out. Social workers have a very difficult job, having to decide the fate of thousands of children and their family's daily, if they remove a child wrongly, look at the Cleveland child abuse scandal where the Social workers removed children from their parents because two experts, Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt, paediatricians at a Middlesbrough hospital told them the children were being abused when they weren't and the Social workers took the blame. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Yet quietly everyday they are taking those decisions, with little or no public support, and making a good job of them. To claim that they leave kids with junkies because it's somehow politically correct or on the whim of an individual Social Worker is just hyperbole. Howie'
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Sat 1 Dec 12

Mervyn James says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Totally ridiculous, under the same criteria no conservative party member should be allowed to adopt children or look after disabled as carers either, because their whole policy is to deprive them of both financial and care support and a job.

I find objection to same-sex marriages irrelevant, they can get married via civil law already, it's not social workers business to tell people what they must accept.

If we are to deprive children of loving foster parents on colour, ethnicity. obesity, smoking, gender, drinking (Even in moderation), and now political party allegiance, they are all going to stay in care homes. All that matters is a stable home and loving carers, the rest is carp basically and PC nonsense. Giving the gross shortage of foster carers available this is going to doom many kids to no care or stability at all. They fail to tell you at 16 they kick these kids out on the street to fend for themselves,maybe social workers shouldn't be anywhere near these kids.....
Wrong Mervyn. The Conservatives want to deprive people who don't deserve benefits of them. Didn't they and the LibDems agree to cap benefits at £26k? That's more than I get for working.
What has targeting frauds to do with real Disabled and sick people ? As regards to how much some disabled are getting, you need to take into account the cost of adaptations and the care they need, it doesn't come cheap, whose fault is that ? as you DON'T need as much you get less. Thank the stars you don't. I think there is a tendency of envy, which is weird who envies NOT being disabled ? More 'let's bash the sick frauds' stuff, it has got really boring and obviously you DON'T read up on the facts either.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Totally ridiculous, under the same criteria no conservative party member should be allowed to adopt children or look after disabled as carers either, because their whole policy is to deprive them of both financial and care support and a job. I find objection to same-sex marriages irrelevant, they can get married via civil law already, it's not social workers business to tell people what they must accept. If we are to deprive children of loving foster parents on colour, ethnicity. obesity, smoking, gender, drinking (Even in moderation), and now political party allegiance, they are all going to stay in care homes. All that matters is a stable home and loving carers, the rest is carp basically and PC nonsense. Giving the gross shortage of foster carers available this is going to doom many kids to no care or stability at all. They fail to tell you at 16 they kick these kids out on the street to fend for themselves,maybe social workers shouldn't be anywhere near these kids.....[/p][/quote]Wrong Mervyn. The Conservatives want to deprive people who don't deserve benefits of them. Didn't they and the LibDems agree to cap benefits at £26k? That's more than I get for working.[/p][/quote]What has targeting frauds to do with real Disabled and sick people ? As regards to how much some disabled are getting, you need to take into account the cost of adaptations and the care they need, it doesn't come cheap, whose fault is that ? as you DON'T need as much you get less. Thank the stars you don't. I think there is a tendency of envy, which is weird who envies NOT being disabled ? More 'let's bash the sick frauds' stuff, it has got really boring and obviously you DON'T read up on the facts either. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

8:36am Sun 2 Dec 12

Bobevans says...

Katie Re-Registered wrote:
But UKIP are definitely against same-sex marriage as opposition to it is a stated part of their manifesto. So, that makes them homophobic and homophobia is equally as bad as racism. Can you imagine the (justified) outcry if a political party believed in implementing a policy to stop people of different races getting married?!

Also, UK 'Independence' Party is something of an ironic misnomer considering their curiously close links with the tea party groupings in the USA. So what would UKIP do if it got in power to make the UK 'independent': why, take us out of Europe and into a satellite of a Republican-led United States, that's what - as - surprise, surprise - their policies are strangely identical(!)
UKIP are not opposed to same sex partnerships. So you are incorrect on that
[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote: But UKIP are definitely against same-sex marriage as opposition to it is a stated part of their manifesto. So, that makes them homophobic and homophobia is equally as bad as racism. Can you imagine the (justified) outcry if a political party believed in implementing a policy to stop people of different races getting married?! Also, UK 'Independence' Party is something of an ironic misnomer considering their curiously close links with the tea party groupings in the USA. So what would UKIP do if it got in power to make the UK 'independent': why, take us out of Europe and into a satellite of a Republican-led United States, that's what - as - surprise, surprise - their policies are strangely identical(!)[/p][/quote]UKIP are not opposed to same sex partnerships. So you are incorrect on that Bobevans
  • Score: 0

8:36am Sun 2 Dec 12

Bobevans says...

Katie Re-Registered wrote:
But UKIP are definitely against same-sex marriage as opposition to it is a stated part of their manifesto. So, that makes them homophobic and homophobia is equally as bad as racism. Can you imagine the (justified) outcry if a political party believed in implementing a policy to stop people of different races getting married?!

Also, UK 'Independence' Party is something of an ironic misnomer considering their curiously close links with the tea party groupings in the USA. So what would UKIP do if it got in power to make the UK 'independent': why, take us out of Europe and into a satellite of a Republican-led United States, that's what - as - surprise, surprise - their policies are strangely identical(!)
UKIP are not opposed to same sex partnerships. So you are incorrect on that
[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote: But UKIP are definitely against same-sex marriage as opposition to it is a stated part of their manifesto. So, that makes them homophobic and homophobia is equally as bad as racism. Can you imagine the (justified) outcry if a political party believed in implementing a policy to stop people of different races getting married?! Also, UK 'Independence' Party is something of an ironic misnomer considering their curiously close links with the tea party groupings in the USA. So what would UKIP do if it got in power to make the UK 'independent': why, take us out of Europe and into a satellite of a Republican-led United States, that's what - as - surprise, surprise - their policies are strangely identical(!)[/p][/quote]UKIP are not opposed to same sex partnerships. So you are incorrect on that Bobevans
  • Score: 0

8:38am Sun 2 Dec 12

Bobevans says...

Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.
'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice'

Well you might but I certainly would not.

'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'.

As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join.

I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto:

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe?

I feel sorry for the kids in this story.
UKIP are not against migration. What they are against is uncontrolled migration.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Hmm. But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice which isn't an influence you want on kids either. Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief. This story says far more about the world social workers inhabit than it does about the real world.[/p][/quote]'But then you could say that the Labour Party has fostered a culture of benefit dependency as a life style choice' Well you might but I certainly would not. 'Most responsible adults like a pick-and-mix approach to policy so membership of any party isn't necessarily an indication of total belief'. As an ex LP member I can't agree with that at all, I think you buy in to the general belief, aspirations and policies of any Political Party before you take the decision to pay your fee and join. I don't think for one minute being a member of UKIP makes you a bad parent but I have to question why they accepted fostering European children when they have taken the decision to join a Political Party that has as one of it's core principals stopping Europeans living here. This from the UKIP manifesto: Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. As they had accepted the general ethos of UKIP why would they foster kids who come from Europe? I feel sorry for the kids in this story.[/p][/quote]UKIP are not against migration. What they are against is uncontrolled migration. Bobevans
  • Score: 0

11:54am Sun 2 Dec 12

Howie' says...

No kidding Sherlock!

But they state that they will stop all migration for five years:


UKIP manifesto:

UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration.

Regain control of UK borders. This can only
be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g.
holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa.
Overstaying will be a criminal offence.

There is much more there and can be read at:

http://www.ukip.org/
media/pdf/UKIPmanife
sto1304a.pdf

Setion 5.

You are correct Bob (never thought I would say that) that they state they are in favour of controlled migration yet none of the things that they intend to do allow for migration without the applicant going through hoops. The idea obviously being to stop or minimise migration. So lets not play with words when their intention is quite clear and obvious. They are against migration but will reluctantly accept some, in fact they say they will accept 50,000pa which seems a bit daft to me when you consider that 207,000 emigrated from the UK last year and bearing in mind the demographic transition with low birth rates and an ageing population seems to me to be plain stupid.
No kidding Sherlock! But they state that they will stop all migration for five years: UKIP manifesto: UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration. Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence. There is much more there and can be read at: http://www.ukip.org/ media/pdf/UKIPmanife sto1304a.pdf Setion 5. You are correct Bob (never thought I would say that) that they state they are in favour of controlled migration yet none of the things that they intend to do allow for migration without the applicant going through hoops. The idea obviously being to stop or minimise migration. So lets not play with words when their intention is quite clear and obvious. They are against migration but will reluctantly accept some, in fact they say they will accept 50,000pa which seems a bit daft to me when you consider that 207,000 emigrated from the UK last year and bearing in mind the demographic transition with low birth rates and an ageing population seems to me to be plain stupid. Howie'
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Mervyn James says...

Perhaps I should vote UKIP I want a complete stop for a few years as well. It is a pity this stance has led to 'racism' claims, when in fact 68% of the population are in agreement, so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway ? Why not train Britons to work in their own country ? All Cameron and employers are doing are capitalising on the training undertaken elsewhere whilst we deprive our own. However the UKIP is till too close to right wing conservatism, no worries they will all be on their A**e after the next election just hold tight for now or until the lib-dems realise no-one needs them except the tories.
Perhaps I should vote UKIP I want a complete stop for a few years as well. It is a pity this stance has led to 'racism' claims, when in fact 68% of the population are in agreement, so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway ? Why not train Britons to work in their own country ? All Cameron and employers are doing are capitalising on the training undertaken elsewhere whilst we deprive our own. However the UKIP is till too close to right wing conservatism, no worries they will all be on their A**e after the next election just hold tight for now or until the lib-dems realise no-one needs them except the tories. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Agree the LibDems are toast. Labour will return to power when everyone forgets their pathological squandering of other people's (and borrowed) money, an illegal war started with forged evidence, uncontrolled immigration, the handing over of our government to Europe, the creation of huge numbers of tax-payer funded 'nothing' jobs to ensure themselves support, the creation of two hugely expensive grant distribution offices in Wales and Scotland and then leave it to someone else to sort. Quote from a departing Labour minister to his Tory successor 'all the money has gone'. No sh** Sherlock.
Agree the LibDems are toast. Labour will return to power when everyone forgets their pathological squandering of other people's (and borrowed) money, an illegal war started with forged evidence, uncontrolled immigration, the handing over of our government to Europe, the creation of huge numbers of tax-payer funded 'nothing' jobs to ensure themselves support, the creation of two hugely expensive grant distribution offices in Wales and Scotland and then leave it to someone else to sort. Quote from a departing Labour minister to his Tory successor 'all the money has gone'. No sh** Sherlock. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Howie' says...

I would hazard a guess and I might be wrong here, LA, that you are not a natural Labour supporter,lol.

A good rant, sounds like the leader comment in the Daily Mail, mostly wrong of course.

'Pathological squandering', can you describe a Government collectively of being 'pathological'? And if they were 'pathologically spending' how come by 2007 Labour had cut the level of national debt, and was running a lower annual deficit than it inherited when Tony Blair moved into Number 10 and it’s worth remembering the Tories did sign up to Labour’s spending plan in 2007 – neither of the two parties now in government called for lower spending at the time, so the Lib's and Tory's never saw a problem at the time.

An illegal war....Well that depends who you listen too, Tory's and Labour say legal, Lib Dems and others say illegal, US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Gulf War had already authorized the invasion. By the way I agree with you on that one, but could be wrong.

'the handing over of our government to Europe'

Funny I must have been asleep and missed that happening. The House of Commons Library says 9.3% of Laws in the UK originate in the EU but a recent study in Germany came up with this:

UK – 15.5%
Denmark – 14%
Austria – 10.6%
France – 26%
Finland – 24%
Germany – 39.1%

'the creation of huge numbers of tax-payer funded 'nothing' jobs to ensure themselves support'.

I think they will plead guilty on that one as they created nearly a million jobs in the public sector mostly in the north of England...........Wh
ere your argument falls apart of course is that the Labour Party promised to do that in the run up to the 1997 General Election and Labour were voted in with the biggest majority ever, so I guess the electorate were quite happy to reduce the amount of people of the dole, and as far as I remember they did not have any difficulty filling what were mostly low paid work.

'the creation of two hugely expensive grant distribution offices in Wales and Scotland'

I think you will find that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were created after a referendum by the electorate, a referendum that they would have had even if the Tory's had won in 1997.

'then leave it to someone else to sort'

haha, made I laugh did that...they did not leave it for some one else to 'sort' they were voted out of office, lol.
I would hazard a guess and I might be wrong here, LA, that you are not a natural Labour supporter,lol. A good rant, sounds like the leader comment in the Daily Mail, mostly wrong of course. 'Pathological squandering', can you describe a Government collectively of being 'pathological'? And if they were 'pathologically spending' how come by 2007 Labour had cut the level of national debt, and was running a lower annual deficit than it inherited when Tony Blair moved into Number 10 and it’s worth remembering the Tories did sign up to Labour’s spending plan in 2007 – neither of the two parties now in government called for lower spending at the time, so the Lib's and Tory's never saw a problem at the time. An illegal war....Well that depends who you listen too, Tory's and Labour say legal, Lib Dems and others say illegal, US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Gulf War had already authorized the invasion. By the way I agree with you on that one, but could be wrong. 'the handing over of our government to Europe' Funny I must have been asleep and missed that happening. The House of Commons Library says 9.3% of Laws in the UK originate in the EU but a recent study in Germany came up with this: UK – 15.5% Denmark – 14% Austria – 10.6% France – 26% Finland – 24% Germany – 39.1% 'the creation of huge numbers of tax-payer funded 'nothing' jobs to ensure themselves support'. I think they will plead guilty on that one as they created nearly a million jobs in the public sector mostly in the north of England...........Wh ere your argument falls apart of course is that the Labour Party promised to do that in the run up to the 1997 General Election and Labour were voted in with the biggest majority ever, so I guess the electorate were quite happy to reduce the amount of people of the dole, and as far as I remember they did not have any difficulty filling what were mostly low paid work. 'the creation of two hugely expensive grant distribution offices in Wales and Scotland' I think you will find that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were created after a referendum by the electorate, a referendum that they would have had even if the Tory's had won in 1997. 'then leave it to someone else to sort' haha, made I laugh did that...they did not leave it for some one else to 'sort' they were voted out of office, lol. Howie'
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Howie' says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Perhaps I should vote UKIP I want a complete stop for a few years as well. It is a pity this stance has led to 'racism' claims, when in fact 68% of the population are in agreement, so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway ? Why not train Britons to work in their own country ? All Cameron and employers are doing are capitalising on the training undertaken elsewhere whilst we deprive our own. However the UKIP is till too close to right wing conservatism, no worries they will all be on their A**e after the next election just hold tight for now or until the lib-dems realise no-one needs them except the tories.
Well vote for them Merv, if you can stomach voting for a party who make the Tory's look like bunch of pinko's.
Before you do though can I suggest you read a book that is coming out next year called 'Voting for Extremists'. The book is about the electoral rise of extreme and radical right-wing parties in Britain and Europe, though mainly the British National Party and UK Independence Party.

I think claiming 68% of the population is a bit rich especially when the anti immigrant (OK Bob, controlled migration) party's barely get a double digit % between them.

'so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway?

err, no Merv. I think you will find that the 'racists' are fortunately in the vocal minority.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I should vote UKIP I want a complete stop for a few years as well. It is a pity this stance has led to 'racism' claims, when in fact 68% of the population are in agreement, so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway ? Why not train Britons to work in their own country ? All Cameron and employers are doing are capitalising on the training undertaken elsewhere whilst we deprive our own. However the UKIP is till too close to right wing conservatism, no worries they will all be on their A**e after the next election just hold tight for now or until the lib-dems realise no-one needs them except the tories.[/p][/quote]Well vote for them Merv, if you can stomach voting for a party who make the Tory's look like bunch of pinko's. Before you do though can I suggest you read a book that is coming out next year called 'Voting for Extremists'. The book is about the electoral rise of extreme and radical right-wing parties in Britain and Europe, though mainly the British National Party and UK Independence Party. I think claiming 68% of the population is a bit rich especially when the anti immigrant (OK Bob, controlled migration) party's barely get a double digit % between them. 'so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway? err, no Merv. I think you will find that the 'racists' are fortunately in the vocal minority. Howie'
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Llanmartinangel says...

So how did they get from 2007 salad days to the bankrupt mess they got voted out from then? Oh yeah, that was someone else's fault.
So how did they get from 2007 salad days to the bankrupt mess they got voted out from then? Oh yeah, that was someone else's fault. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Mervyn James says...

Howie' wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Perhaps I should vote UKIP I want a complete stop for a few years as well. It is a pity this stance has led to 'racism' claims, when in fact 68% of the population are in agreement, so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway ? Why not train Britons to work in their own country ? All Cameron and employers are doing are capitalising on the training undertaken elsewhere whilst we deprive our own. However the UKIP is till too close to right wing conservatism, no worries they will all be on their A**e after the next election just hold tight for now or until the lib-dems realise no-one needs them except the tories.
Well vote for them Merv, if you can stomach voting for a party who make the Tory's look like bunch of pinko's.
Before you do though can I suggest you read a book that is coming out next year called 'Voting for Extremists'. The book is about the electoral rise of extreme and radical right-wing parties in Britain and Europe, though mainly the British National Party and UK Independence Party.

I think claiming 68% of the population is a bit rich especially when the anti immigrant (OK Bob, controlled migration) party's barely get a double digit % between them.

'so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway?

err, no Merv. I think you will find that the 'racists' are fortunately in the vocal minority.
A vocal minority with overwhelming public support. I'm glad you don't view us all as racists. It is NOT my claim, but a government researched survey, (who then chose to ignore it), because the Europeans who form the majority of abusers of immigration here, said we can't object, via their mickey mouse parliament. Again a survey today on the BBC news stated a lot in the UK are for chopping out that deadwood too. It s only European laws (Made to suit them not us), that prevent us sorting the mess out. We have 150,000 KNOWN illegals here who need to be served repatriation notices, and nothing is done about them. It is madness to encourage MORE ! BNP/national front/Tory/UKIP and 68% of the UK voters, we're all wrong of course.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I should vote UKIP I want a complete stop for a few years as well. It is a pity this stance has led to 'racism' claims, when in fact 68% of the population are in agreement, so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway ? Why not train Britons to work in their own country ? All Cameron and employers are doing are capitalising on the training undertaken elsewhere whilst we deprive our own. However the UKIP is till too close to right wing conservatism, no worries they will all be on their A**e after the next election just hold tight for now or until the lib-dems realise no-one needs them except the tories.[/p][/quote]Well vote for them Merv, if you can stomach voting for a party who make the Tory's look like bunch of pinko's. Before you do though can I suggest you read a book that is coming out next year called 'Voting for Extremists'. The book is about the electoral rise of extreme and radical right-wing parties in Britain and Europe, though mainly the British National Party and UK Independence Party. I think claiming 68% of the population is a bit rich especially when the anti immigrant (OK Bob, controlled migration) party's barely get a double digit % between them. 'so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway? err, no Merv. I think you will find that the 'racists' are fortunately in the vocal minority.[/p][/quote]A vocal minority with overwhelming public support. I'm glad you don't view us all as racists. It is NOT my claim, but a government researched survey, (who then chose to ignore it), because the Europeans who form the majority of abusers of immigration here, said we can't object, via their mickey mouse parliament. Again a survey today on the BBC news stated a lot in the UK are for chopping out that deadwood too. It s only European laws (Made to suit them not us), that prevent us sorting the mess out. We have 150,000 KNOWN illegals here who need to be served repatriation notices, and nothing is done about them. It is madness to encourage MORE ! BNP/national front/Tory/UKIP and 68% of the UK voters, we're all wrong of course. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Independentvoter says...

Anyway, getting back to the politics and policies of ukip john bufton mep for Wales.

He doesn't seem to make sense to me. How many British people are actually doing the same thing in Australia, Canada, Spain and the rest of the world etc ?

Google how many British Nationals live permanently abroad.

Does he have any other policies, like Education, Health etc ?

The tories know the libs are a gonna. A little strange that ukip are so popular now all of a sudden. Isn't it ?
Anyway, getting back to the politics and policies of ukip john bufton mep for Wales. He doesn't seem to make sense to me. How many British people are actually doing the same thing in Australia, Canada, Spain and the rest of the world etc ? Google how many British Nationals live permanently abroad. Does he have any other policies, like Education, Health etc ? The tories know the libs are a gonna. A little strange that ukip are so popular now all of a sudden. Isn't it ? Independentvoter
  • Score: 0

1:23am Mon 3 Dec 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
So how did they get from 2007 salad days to the bankrupt mess they got voted out from then? Oh yeah, that was someone else's fault.
Oh come on LA your better than that!

Oh yeah, It was someone else's fault that they were voted out.................
................blo*
ody electorate, you just can't trust them to do the right thing these days..........lol.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: So how did they get from 2007 salad days to the bankrupt mess they got voted out from then? Oh yeah, that was someone else's fault.[/p][/quote]Oh come on LA your better than that! Oh yeah, It was someone else's fault that they were voted out................. ................blo* ody electorate, you just can't trust them to do the right thing these days..........lol. Howie'
  • Score: 0

9:01am Mon 3 Dec 12

Dai Rear says...

'Voting for Extremists'. The book is about the electoral rise of extreme and radical right-wing parties in Britain and Europe, though mainly the British National Party and UK Independence Party."
Howie, I doubt that many people who read this newspapre are going to read yet another socialist apologia. If they want leftist ranting they can just switch on the BBC. But I suppose what it's really about is this-how on earth do you lefties distinguish yourselves from what you call "the Right"? You all want a big state with complete control over people's lives, very high taxation and punishment for dissenters. I guess your hero Stalin was as "rac-ist" in his treatment of Chechens and other Mohammedan minorities as was ever any "right wing" leader.
It's a mystery to me but I'd say most Welsh people, when they think of it, would want a small state, rational tax and mild police rather than the wishes of you extreme left/rightists.
'Voting for Extremists'. The book is about the electoral rise of extreme and radical right-wing parties in Britain and Europe, though mainly the British National Party and UK Independence Party." Howie, I doubt that many people who read this newspapre are going to read yet another socialist apologia. If they want leftist ranting they can just switch on the BBC. But I suppose what it's really about is this-how on earth do you lefties distinguish yourselves from what you call "the Right"? You all want a big state with complete control over people's lives, very high taxation and punishment for dissenters. I guess your hero Stalin was as "rac-ist" in his treatment of Chechens and other Mohammedan minorities as was ever any "right wing" leader. It's a mystery to me but I'd say most Welsh people, when they think of it, would want a small state, rational tax and mild police rather than the wishes of you extreme left/rightists. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

9:28am Mon 3 Dec 12

Howie' says...

Thanks for the rant Dai, i did enjoy it. Now that you have told me, I now know what I want, what my political beliefs are, who my hero is and what TV channel I must watch, lol............So umm! Thanks Dai, your posts as ever are illuminating and when you say 'It's a mystery to me' I tend to agree Dai, in fact having read a number of your posts I think most things are a mystery to you.
Thanks for the rant Dai, i did enjoy it. Now that you have told me, I now know what I want, what my political beliefs are, who my hero is and what TV channel I must watch, lol............So umm! Thanks Dai, your posts as ever are illuminating and when you say 'It's a mystery to me' I tend to agree Dai, in fact having read a number of your posts I think most things are a mystery to you. Howie'
  • Score: 0

9:42am Mon 3 Dec 12

Howie' says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Perhaps I should vote UKIP I want a complete stop for a few years as well. It is a pity this stance has led to 'racism' claims, when in fact 68% of the population are in agreement, so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway ? Why not train Britons to work in their own country ? All Cameron and employers are doing are capitalising on the training undertaken elsewhere whilst we deprive our own. However the UKIP is till too close to right wing conservatism, no worries they will all be on their A**e after the next election just hold tight for now or until the lib-dems realise no-one needs them except the tories.
Well vote for them Merv, if you can stomach voting for a party who make the Tory's look like bunch of pinko's.
Before you do though can I suggest you read a book that is coming out next year called 'Voting for Extremists'. The book is about the electoral rise of extreme and radical right-wing parties in Britain and Europe, though mainly the British National Party and UK Independence Party.

I think claiming 68% of the population is a bit rich especially when the anti immigrant (OK Bob, controlled migration) party's barely get a double digit % between them.

'so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway?

err, no Merv. I think you will find that the 'racists' are fortunately in the vocal minority.
A vocal minority with overwhelming public support. I'm glad you don't view us all as racists. It is NOT my claim, but a government researched survey, (who then chose to ignore it), because the Europeans who form the majority of abusers of immigration here, said we can't object, via their mickey mouse parliament. Again a survey today on the BBC news stated a lot in the UK are for chopping out that deadwood too. It s only European laws (Made to suit them not us), that prevent us sorting the mess out. We have 150,000 KNOWN illegals here who need to be served repatriation notices, and nothing is done about them. It is madness to encourage MORE ! BNP/national front/Tory/UKIP and 68% of the UK voters, we're all wrong of course.
Well back it up, Merv. Where is the 'government researched survey', when did the EU say we can't object?

'We have 150,000 KNOWN illegals here who need to be served repatriation notices'.

Quite agree, but you should be directing your anger against the Government for doing nothing about it.

'BNP/national front/Tory/UKIP and 68% of the UK voters, we're all wrong of course.

Where do you get the 68% from Merv? because it certainly does not come from voting results, the BNP vote went down substantially from the 2010 election in the recent by-elections.

'I'm glad you don't view us all as racists'.

Merv, I have never inferred or called you or anyone else a racist, I am of the view that if you resort to that you lose the argument.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I should vote UKIP I want a complete stop for a few years as well. It is a pity this stance has led to 'racism' claims, when in fact 68% of the population are in agreement, so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway ? Why not train Britons to work in their own country ? All Cameron and employers are doing are capitalising on the training undertaken elsewhere whilst we deprive our own. However the UKIP is till too close to right wing conservatism, no worries they will all be on their A**e after the next election just hold tight for now or until the lib-dems realise no-one needs them except the tories.[/p][/quote]Well vote for them Merv, if you can stomach voting for a party who make the Tory's look like bunch of pinko's. Before you do though can I suggest you read a book that is coming out next year called 'Voting for Extremists'. The book is about the electoral rise of extreme and radical right-wing parties in Britain and Europe, though mainly the British National Party and UK Independence Party. I think claiming 68% of the population is a bit rich especially when the anti immigrant (OK Bob, controlled migration) party's barely get a double digit % between them. 'so most of the UK is 'racist' anyway? err, no Merv. I think you will find that the 'racists' are fortunately in the vocal minority.[/p][/quote]A vocal minority with overwhelming public support. I'm glad you don't view us all as racists. It is NOT my claim, but a government researched survey, (who then chose to ignore it), because the Europeans who form the majority of abusers of immigration here, said we can't object, via their mickey mouse parliament. Again a survey today on the BBC news stated a lot in the UK are for chopping out that deadwood too. It s only European laws (Made to suit them not us), that prevent us sorting the mess out. We have 150,000 KNOWN illegals here who need to be served repatriation notices, and nothing is done about them. It is madness to encourage MORE ! BNP/national front/Tory/UKIP and 68% of the UK voters, we're all wrong of course.[/p][/quote]Well back it up, Merv. Where is the 'government researched survey', when did the EU say we can't object? 'We have 150,000 KNOWN illegals here who need to be served repatriation notices'. Quite agree, but you should be directing your anger against the Government for doing nothing about it. 'BNP/national front/Tory/UKIP and 68% of the UK voters, we're all wrong of course. Where do you get the 68% from Merv? because it certainly does not come from voting results, the BNP vote went down substantially from the 2010 election in the recent by-elections. 'I'm glad you don't view us all as racists'. Merv, I have never inferred or called you or anyone else a racist, I am of the view that if you resort to that you lose the argument. Howie'
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree