Robert Henderson
An unnamed (because they did not want the children identified) Rotherham couple experienced in fostering have had three of their charges peremptorily removed by Rotherham social services (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for-being-members-of-Ukip.html). The reason? The couple are members of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) which opposes further wholesale immigration including that from the EU and multiculturalism. These policies were deemed racist by Rotherham social services:
‘They [the fosterers] were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.
The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, ‘What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’
“Then one of them said, ‘Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.’
The fact of UKIP membership was enough to damn the foster parents as unsuitable to raise three East European origin children because according to Joyce Thacker, the council’s Director of Children and Young People’s Services, the UKIP couple could not meet the children’s ”cultural and ethnic needs”. Despite the fact that the UKIP couple had been exemplary foster parents for a number of years. After being removed from the UKIP foster parents the children were split even though they are siblings (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9704964/Ukip-fostering-row-children-were-split-up-when-removed.html). The claim of meeting the children’s “cultural and ethnic needs” is made even more absurd by the fact that the UKIP couple were foster parents trusted to take in children in an emergency, a fostering status which often resulted in the foster periods being short.
Since the story about the Rotherham foster parents broke a UKIP candidate has come forward to say that she was not allowed to be a volunteer with the children’s charity Barnardos because of her UKIP connections:
A row over two UKIP members having their foster children removed took a new twist last night when another woman claimed she had been barred from looking after children because she was a party candidate.
Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, condemned ‘another appalling case of discrimination’ after former district nurse Anne Murgatroyd said she had been prevented from volunteering as a mentor for young adults by leading children’s charity Barnardo’s….
Responding to a Mail on Sunday reporter, she wrote: ‘I’d almost gone through their process and been accepted when I told them I’d be standing for UKIP in locals . . . They checked with managers, discussed it, couldn’t accept me due to issue of multi-culturalism.
‘Their rationale was that because UKIP opposes multi-culturalism it would not be appropriate for me to mentor young people coming out of the care system. My argument was that, yes, I do oppose forced marriage and female genital mutilation and family killings but that does not make me unsuitable to befriend young people.’ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238037/UKIP-leader-fury-member-banned-Barnardos-caring-children.html#ixzz2DDOYxVs1).
These two cases suggest that within the social work world, whether state funded or charitable, UKIP have been placed on some sort of black list. This is positively sinister because once agents of the state, whether directly employed or subcontracted labour in organisations such as charities, are allowed to make political judgements in their work anything potentially goes, including the imposition of blanket bans on those belonging to parties deemed not to be within the ideological Pale of the public servant or organisation.
What Rotherham Social Services and Barnardos are both saying in effect is that only those signing up to an uncritical political correctness can be considered for participation in childcare socialwork. However, that is not entirely correct because, as we shall see, UKIP’s policies on immigration and multiculturalism are not radically different from those of the Conservative Party; neither are they a million miles from those of Labour. To the best of my knowledge there is no example of a member of the Conservative or Labour Parties being denied participation because of their attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism. The implication of this is that UKIP is seen as a fringe party with limited power which can be excluded with few consequences , while the power, influence and money at the disposal of the major parties makes them too hot to challenge – it is also worth remembering that the funding for social services and much of the funding for major charities comes from the taxpayer so those in socialwork have a vested interest in keeping mum about the parties which do or potentially will allocate the taxpayers’ money.
The double standards are further seen in the complaint of the politically correct that UKIP members would indoctrinate the children with UKIP beliefs. But these people are more than happy to tolerate the indoctrination of children with their own views. There are no calls to prevent the politically correct, purveyors of multiculturalism, Marxists and Internationalists from adopting and fostering. The politically correct deem these to be the “right” kind of indoctrination.
What UKIP, the Conservatives, Labour and the BNP say about immigration and multiculturalism
This is UKIP’s immigration policy including its position on multiculturalism:
• End mass, uncontrolled immigration. UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a.
• 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
• Ensure all EU citizens who came to Britain after 1 January 2004 are treated in the same way as citizens from other countries (unless entitled to ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’). Non- UK citizens travelling to or from the UK will have their entry and exit recorded. To enforce this, the number of UK Borders Agency staff engaged in controlling immigration will be tripled to 30,000
• Ensure that after the five-year freeze, any future immigration for permanent settlement will be on a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia, Canada and New Zealand
• Return people found to be living illegally in the UK to their country of origin. There can be no question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Such amnesties merely encourage further illegal immigration
• Require those living in the UK under ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’ to abide by a legally binding ‘Undertaking of Residence’ ensuring they respect our laws or face deportation. Such citizens will not be eligible for benefits. People applying for British citizenship will have to have completed a period of not less then five years as a resident on ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’. New citizens should pass a citizenship test and sign a ‘Declaration of British Citizenship’ promising to uphold Britain’s democratic and tolerant way of life
• Enforce the existing terms of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees until Britain replaces it with an Asylum Act. To avoid disappearances, asylum seekers will be held in secure and
humane centres until applications are processed, with limited right to appeal. Those seeking asylum must do so in the first ‘designated safe country’ they enter. Existing asylum seekers who have had their application refused will be required to leave the country, along with any dependants. We oppose any amnesties for failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.
• Require all travellers to the UK to obtain a visa from a British Embassy or High Commission, except where visa waivers have been agreed with other countries. All non-work permit visa entrants to the UK will be required to take out adequate health insurance (except where reciprocal arrangements exist). Those without insurance will be refused entry. Certain visas, such as student visas, will require face-to-face interviews, and UKIP will crack down on bogus educational establishments
• Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In future British courts will not be allowed to appeal to any international treaty or convention that overrides or sets aside the provisions of any statue passed by the UK Parliament
• Reintroduce The ‘Primary Purpose Rule’ (abolished by the Labour Government), whereby those marrying or seeking to marry a British citizen will have to convince the admitting officer that marriage, not residence, is their primary purpose in seeking to enter the UK
• End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies
• Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years. Currently, British benefits can be claimed by EU citizens in their arrival year (http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1499-immigration-ukip-policy).
Most of those policies are either formal Conservative policy or have considerable traction within the Parliamentary party. In the case of multiculturalism David Cameron since becoming Prime Minister has repudiated it for its fracturing effect on society(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994 State multiculturalism has failed). Here is the official Conservative Party policy on immigration:
IMMIGRATION
We are restoring order to our immigration system to bring annual net migration down to the tens of thousands – rather than the hundreds of thousands we saw under Labour – by the end of this Parliament. We have capped economic migration, reformed the student visa system, and we’re changing the family visa rules. We have made reforms at our borders, to ensure they are safe and secure.
The bigger picture
• Our annual limit on non-EU economic migration will not only help reduce immigration to sustainable levels but will protect those businesses and institutions that are vital to our economy. The new system was designed in consultation with business. Employers should look first to people who are out of work and who are already in this country.
• A properly controlled and regulated student visa system is a crucial component of our policy to reduce and control net migration. That is why we have radically reformed student visas to weed out abuse and tackle bogus colleges. And our reforms are starting to take effect: in the year to June 2012, there was a thirty per cent decrease in the number of student visas issued compared to the year to June 2011.
• We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard and make a contribution but a family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense. To play a full part in British life, family migrants must be able to integrate – that means they must speak our language and pay their way. This is fair to applicants, but also fair to the public.
• The Government’s priority is the security of the UK border. The right checks need to be carried out to control immigration, protect against terrorism and tackle crime. We are maintaining thorough border checks. And despite those robust checks, the vast majority of passengers pass through immigration control quickly. http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Immigration.aspx
The Labour Party do not have an up to date immigration policy on their website but their 2010 manifesto stated:
5.2 • Control immigration through our Australian-style points-based system, ensuring that as growth returns we see rising levels of employment and wages, not rising immigration, and requiring newcomers to earn citizenship and the entitlements it brings. http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf
The Labour leader Ed Miliband said this in April 2011 to explain why Labour lost the 2010 election:
“I think the problem is that we lost trust and we lost touch particularly in the south of England.
“I think living standards is a big part of it; immigration is a big part of it. I think maybe a combination of those two issues.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8462411/Ed-Miliband-immigration-lost-Labour-votes.html
Even if the three parties’ policies are not exactly the same there is much overlapping. Moreover the objections of Rotherham Social Services and Barnardos were on the general grounds of finding opposition to immigration and multiculturalism objectionable, so the exact detail of the objections is irrelevant.
UKIP may not be at the top of the politically correct pantheon of secular devils, but the British National Party indubitably is. The BNP’s current policy on immigration is:
– Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
– Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
– Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
– Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
– Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
– Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain. (http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/immigration)
That goes substantially further than UKIP, the Conservatives and Labour. Nonetheless, if Conservative and Labour party spokesmen were asked to comment on what should happen to illegal immigrants, foreigners who commit crimes or whether citizenship should be removed from those with dual nationality who commit serious crimes, I doubt whether any would say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay, foreigners who commit serious crimes should not be deported or British citizenship should not be taken from foreigners who have gained it and gone on to plot terrorist attacks on this country.
As for the rejection of asylum seekers who have passed through safe countries, Britain has a legal right to do this under the various treaties which cover asylum. Nor could there be any objection in principle to the use of payments to voluntarily repatriate people because the government has been happy enough to pay failed asylum seekers to leave Britain in the recent past (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572669/Row-over-payments-to-failed-asylum-seekers.html) and http://www.irr.org.uk/news/the-politics-of-voluntary-returns/.
It would be difficult to make a case for the BNP policy on immigration being so utterly different from that of the Conservative and Labour parties that the party deserved to be treated differently. As for the BNP’s rejection of multiculturalism, that is no different in principle from that of the Conservatives and UKIP. Multiculturalism is something you either support or oppose. It is a general policy not one of specific detail being simply a belief that different ethnic/racial groups should be able to follow their own ancestral cultural norms. Beyond that It does not stipulate what the relationship between the groups should be.
The broader question
The broader question raised by the Rotherham case is why it is thought an unquestioned good that children brought up in this country should be raised in a way which will make them see themselves as separate from the native population. If a child is to grow up, live and work as an adult in a country , which is probably what the children involved in the Rotherham case will do, the security and life chances of the child will be best secured by assimilating as completely as possible not by remaining separate from the native population. To deliberately set a child apart from the native population by insisting that they are brought up by those deemed culturally compatible (which is often social worker code for being of the same race) is to generate suspicion on the part of the native population of the outsider and paranoia on the part of the outsider that he or she is always under threat from the majority. That is healthy for no one. It is a recipe for racial and ethnic conflict./
Where does the extreme political correctness in public bodies come from?
The political correctness of public bodies is not accidental. Legislation such as the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34/section/1)which lays a duty on public bodies to not only be non-discriminatory but to prove they are being so, have institutionalised political correctness with arguably the rightness of multiculturalism as its core belief. Such laws should be repealed because they entrench a political creed in law.
Another buttress of institutionalised political correctness is the use of organisations such as Common Purpose (CP). ( It is interesting that Joyce Thacker, Rotherham council’s Director of Children and Young People’s Service is reported to be a Common Purpose graduate – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100191270/rotherham-hislop-common-purpose/). CP represents itself as a leadership training organisation which is something of an oddity in itself. It is very successful in persuading public bodies to send staff for this “leadership training” for which COP is paid millions a year. Courses are offered for people aiming to become leaders to those who are already well up the ladder of their career path.
Here are a few passages from the COP website which positively shout the message of political correctness:
“Leadership resources
Common Purpose is interested in all aspects of leadership – when, what and how people choose to lead, and how they become better at it. We are also interested in all leaders, from all backgrounds; people at the beginning of their careers keen to develop their leadership potential to those looking to use their leadership skills in retirement.” (http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/resources).
“We value diversity and constantly strive to provide equality of opportunity as an employer and in the provision and delivery of all our activities. We positively encourage applications from all sections of the community and are working hard to ensure that our courses and services meet the requirements of people with disabilities.
Why do we do it?
What underpins all Common Purpose courses is a belief that society benefits from people of all ages, backgrounds and cultures working together to help guide and shape the future of their organisations and communities. This is best achieved when leaders are able to realise their full potential, through broadening their horizons and establishing firm roots in their communities.” (http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/about/what-we-do)
No one opposed to political correctness, either wholly or in part, could take part in such a course honestly or willingly. ( For an extensive list of CP “graduates” and the positions held by them go to http://cpexposed.com/graduates). The aims of CP and the courses offered bear a strong resemblance cadre training in the Marxist-Leninist mould. It is probable that the ever growing political correctness in public service is to a significant degree engineered by the CP graduates who may act as a kind of freemasonary as well as promoting the idea as individuals. There is consequently a very strong case for banning any public servant from attending its courses.
What else can be done?
David Cameron may have spoken against multiculturalism and promised to legislate against the practice of social workers of placing children for adoption (and fostering) based on racial and cultural compatibility. But he has not done this after several years in office. Until this is done social workers and their ilk in not-for-profit bodies such as charities will continue to promote the politically correct and multicultural and nothing-else- will- be permitted message through their control of who is allowed to participate in their work. There needs to be a specific legal bar to taking the political views of would be adopters, foster parents, volunteers and, indeed, social workers themselves into account when deciding on adoption or fostering, recruiting volunteers or employing people to engage in childcare social work.
That does not mean that individuals should never be disbarred from such positions because of their views, but the views for which they are deemed unsuitable should be their own and not those attributed to the person simply because they show sympathy for a political party, ideology or movement. Nor should views be a disqualification unless they are directly relevant to the position sought, for example, someone espousing the view that the age of consent should be abolished who was seeking to become a foster parent might reasonably be considered unsuitable to look after children. Opposition to immigration or multiculturalism should not be grounds for the thumbs down; nor should a belief in an open door immigration policy and multiculturalism result in rejection. Finally, it should always be remembered that the behaviour of people is often at odds with their political and moral views. Behaviour is a surer guide to the character of a person than what they say.
That those in the childcare department of Rotherham Council knew that what they were doing was dubious at best and illegal at worst is shown by their attempts to silence the couple involved; their failure to confirm in writing the reasons for the children’s removal despite repeated requests from the couple and their refusal to publish the results of their internal inquiry into the matter. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9706739/Ukip-fostering-row-mafia-council-told-us-to-keep-quiet-say-parents.html).
The attitude of the local Rotherham politicians is illustrated by Josephine Burton, a cabinet member at Labour-run Rotherham metropolitan borough council. She told a member of the public “It may be advisable to wait until you have a better understanding of fostering and the current legislation that surrounds it, before wading in to pass judgement.” (Ibid). No apology by the council has been offered to the couple involved.
