Now it seems you can't do socially valuable roles without being vetted for the "correct" political views. Belonging to the wrong political party means you get cut off from parts of society. Didn't they try this in Russia? How in the bloody hell do they get away with this?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20476654

Foster Parents have children removed because they belonged to UKIP

 

I bet there are a few squeeky bums at the children's services dept. in Rotherham Council.

However I wonder what the take would be if they were avid BNP supporters?



Anyhoo, what is more concerning is why are we fostering children from european migrants? Protective custody, I hope?

 

Seems difficult to believe the council's action for such reasons.

That sort of thing would be a big worry in this country. They have said that the government is investigating what happened. It will be interesting what conclusion they come to.

Les

 

Nothing to do with 'thought police'. Just idiot decision by an idiot council

Please do not try and extrapolate this into something it isn't

 

Why isn't it Martin? The couple are being punished for beliefs they have, not actions they have taken. On what basis was the decision made? Because of their political views only.

Wikipedia says the following The term "Thought Police," by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness....

I would say that fits the case very well

 

I'd like to hear the social workers' explanation of how the UKIP constitutes a racist party.

If they worked for me, i'd suspend them immediately until i had grounds to fire them.

 

They are being punished by a stupid council, not the thought police.

Pretty much everyone else thinks the council have been idiotic, so there is no reason to try and turn this into something it isn't

 

My use of the phrase thought police doesn't represent an actual organisation with a CEO and org chart! It is a way of describing a mindset within public bodies. Again I say the term fits perfectly and again you have failed to give any argument as to why it is incorrect

 

Mate, your wasting your time, he's a liberal that's just trying to get a rise out of you, then 'he' labels you with the old racist tag.

 

Your verb your, please make it stop

 

I don't think it's incorrect, I just think it's a massive over-reaction to say this is some kind of institutionalised bias. Plus I think you like using it to support your broader world-view....Am I wrong?

 

I do wish you lot would make your minds up. I cannot be a sandal wearing, lentil munching liberal' AND a 'right wing, Daily Mail reading reactionary'. Please decide, I'm not good at multitasking.

By the way I think I described YOU as a racist, because YOU made blatantly racist comments, that were picked up upon by many people on here. I don't think I've called anyone else here racist. So I guess that makes you both a racist and special

 

ok, some progress!
Well seeing as Thacker (the dept head) gave an interview completely supporting the decision, I would say that IS evidence for "institutionalised bias". She and her dept think it IS acceptable to step in on the basis of the couple having the "wrong" political views, despite the couple's 7 years of problem free experience!
I'm calling it for what it is, without filters. You, the dept head and the original social workers are the only ones who seem to think this is a storm in a teacup, EVERYONE else is outraged and disgusted, including Milliband. Surely even you must realise YOUR world view is showing you to be completely out of step. There is NO excuse for this, no mealy mouthed, "the law says we have to" nonsense, this is thought policing, plain and simple. It's a straightforward play from Communist Russia, be a member of the party or suffer...

 

[/QUOTE],



Wow massive amount of words being put in my mouth here

Don't include me in the 'this is a storm in a tea cup' camp, I never ever said that. I too was angered by the sheer bloody stupidity of the decision, and I'm really not a natural UKIP sympathizer. Like you (and I) said everyone is angered by this. But this does not equate to any sort of 'thought police' situation, as will become abundantly clear when heads start to roll. Just stupid people making a stupid decision, if this was institutionalised it would be common place and not news, and we wouldn't be discussing it.

 

Most of the time Martin it is difficult to work out exactly what you are in fact. Most of the time your complaints dont actually seem to relate to the post you happen to be whingeing about!

Les

 

Like the whole child abuse scandal in Rotherham you mean?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20423789

 

Why not open your eyes and read then.

It really is not difficult to see what my comments relate too.

 

no not really

 

Martin, you really are a grumpy little bugger aren't you?

Get a bit of humility, for gawds sake.

 

I'm debating something with Warren and you tell ME to get some humility

 

I take your point.

You're still a grumpy sod.

 

It's something we accrue with age and experience, you'll get there one day whippersnapper.

 

Guilty as charged

 

LOL - you can lead a horse to water eh?!

I note in post 10 on the other thread (https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...re-fiasco.html) you admit the decision was idealogical. It looks like you are arguing simply for the sake of it. The department repeatedly makes idealogical decisions, these are two big cases that have come to light out of how many? This ideology IS the problem

 

Now you are talking!

Les