New details emerge of the UKIP foster parent moral panic

[GerrardWinstanley]

I don't know how many here have been following this story. There was a case last week that came to the attention of the public of children taken from their foster parents (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/24/ukip-parents-lose-foster-children_n_2183632.html) by social services in Rotherham, allegedly on the grounds that their membership of the rightwing, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party made them unfit to meet the children's "ethnic needs". This caused a predictable shitstorm in the national press accompanied by mass hysteria. This played conveniently into the UKIP's hands on Wednesday where they came second place (beating the Conservative Party) in three parliamentary by-elections. Rotherham's social services have been unable to effectively defend the decision and explain the situation, since the children are currently the subject of court proceedings.

I saw this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed?CMP=twt_gu) today. It turns out social services were only keeping the children out of concern that that the biological parents (who are Roma) had been sexually abusing them and may have found out the children and foster parents' whereabouts.

The other side to the story is that the biological parents were furious the local authority took their children away with no justification and put them with a family who would deny them their language and identity.

Amazing how effective incomplete information in provokes such extreme kneejerk reactions and feeds into racist mythmaking, don't you think?

What are thoughts on this story?

[ed miliband]

I don't know how many here have been following this story. There was a case last week that came to the attention of the public of children taken from their foster parents (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/24/ukip-parents-lose-foster-children_n_2183632.html) by social services in Rotherham, allegedly on the grounds that their membership of the rightwing, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party made them unfit to meet the children's "ethnic needs". This caused a predictable shitstorm in the national press accompanied by mass hysteria. This played conveniently into the UKIP's hands on Wednesday where they came second place (beating the Conservative Party) in three parliamentary by-elections. Rotherham's social services have been unable to effectively defend the decision and explain the situation, since the children are currently the subject of court proceedings.

I saw this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed?CMP=twt_gu) today. It turns out social services were only keeping the children out of concern that that the biological parents (who are Roma) had been sexually abusing them and may have found out the children and foster parents' whereabouts.

The other side to the story is that the biological parents were furious the local authority took their children away with no justification and put them with a family who would deny them their language and identity.

Amazing how effective incomplete information in provoking public kneejerk. It is the standard method by which the gutter press likes to keep people informed.

What are thoughts on this story?

from the start, joyce thacker, head of child services in rotherham, was defending the decision as if it were based wholly on the fact the foster parents were members of ukip; she's as much responsible for the "kneejerk reaction" (which i don't believe actually existed, btw) as the media.

[GerrardWinstanley]

from the start, joyce thacker, head of child services in rotherham, was defending the decision as if it were based wholly on the fact the foster parents were members of ukip; she's as much responsible for the "kneejerk reaction" (which i don't believe actually existed, btw) as the media.Of course it was a kneejerk response. It was front page news for a week and non-stop fiery indignation from journalists and politicians of such a magnitude, that Michael Gove had to intervene and launch probe into Rotherham's decision. And this was all thanks to, what were effectively lies by omission.

[ed miliband]

Of course it was a kneejerk response. It was front page news for a week and non-stop fiery indignation from journalists and politicians of such a magnitude, that Michael Gove had to intervene and launch probe into Rotherham's decision. And this was all thanks to, what were effectively lies by omission.

in terms of "storm in a teacup" you're right, but you'd think from reading your original post that the public were up in arms over it, when in reality it hasn't galvanised the public imagination in the same way things like expenses, bonuses, savile, etc. has; doesn't seem like very many people actually care about it at all.

and again, joyce thacker completely played into it, for reasons only she knows...