Children's carer banned from caring for children for being a member of UKIP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

UKIP leader's fury after member is banned by Barnardo's from caring for children

- District nurse said charity told her it would 'not be appropriate'
- New scandal follows revelation of UKIP parents banned from fostering

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...Farage-010.jpg
Anger: UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned 'another appalling case of discrimination' after a member was prevented from volunteering as a mentor for young adults by leading children's charity Barnardo's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mail

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.

Ms Murgatroyd, a mother of three, claims she told the charity of her political affiliation and was told it would ‘not be appropriate’ for her to perform the role, which involves supporting children coming out of the care system, because UKIP ‘opposes multi-culturalism’.

The charity said there were other reasons for Ms Murgatroyd’s rejection but refused to disclose further details.

The claim came as two investigations were launched into a council’s ‘indefensible’ decision to remove three vulnerable children from their foster parents because of their support for UKIP.

Social workers at Rotherham Borough Council claimed the married couple’s affiliation with UKIP meant they supported ‘racist’ policies which made them unsuitable carers for the non-British children and there were concerns for their ‘cultural and ethical needs’.

But amid widespread condemnation of their actions yesterday, the Labour-run council began an internal review, and Education Secretary Michael Gove announced his own investigation.

Last night, Mr Farage said he had ‘no reason’ to doubt Ms Murgatroyd’s story.

He said: ‘I met this lady at our party conference. We knew about this story at the time but she chose not to publicise it. She has now decided to make it known, really in support of the couple in Rotherham. Because of all that, I believe her story is genuine.’

Separately, UKIP officials said Ms Murgatroyd informed them of her problems with Barnardo’s several months ago.

---

http://www.ukipleeds.org.uk/Anne%20Murgatroyd.jpg
Anne Murgatroyd said the charity told her it would ‘not be appropriate’ for her to perform the role

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mail

The latest claim emerged in a series of posts Ms Murgatroyd, who stood as a UKIP candidate for Leeds City Council in May’s elections, made on Twitter.

She wrote: ‘Barnardo’s would not allow me to be a volunteer befriender of young people leaving care when I told them I was standing for UKIP . . . Barnardo’s rationale for this was that “UKIP opposes multi-culturalism”.’

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.’

Barnardo’s denied ‘blanket banning’ any applicant. It said: ‘The needs of the child must be paramount when making any decision about matching them with carers and the most important thing is to provide a loving and supportive environment.

People from all backgrounds work and volunteer for Barnardo’s but there are many factors to take into consideration when assessing suitability to work with children or young people. Cultural context is relevant, but so are family background, health, and any previous experience.’

The foster couple in Rotherham at the centre of a separate storm claimed Howard Woolfenden, the council’s former director of safeguarding children and families, had taken the decision to separate them from the children in their care without prior discussion.

They also denied claims their membership of UKIP affected their treatment of the children.

The wife said: ‘We were actively encouraging these children to speak their own language and to teach us their language. We enjoyed singing one of their folk songs in their native language.

‘These children have now been placed with families who are also white British. How are these people going to meet the cultural needs of these children?’

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said the decision may have breached the parents’ right to freedom of political opinion.

Mr Woolfenden was not available for comment.

In a statement, Rotherham council announced an immediate investigation and said: ‘Membership of a political party should not stop someone fostering children.’

Labour leader Ed Miliband called for an urgent probe.

---

This one we don't know for sure about unlike the other case, but seems pretty genuine considering the charity haven't disclosed the other 'reasons' for dismissal and she apparently told of this story a few months back. And for those who are confused on definitions, please research the distinction between multiculturalism and multiracialism - UKIP is opposed to multiculturalism, not multiracialism.

But you know, this goes even deeper than UKIP. Just read this extract which Peter Hitchens discusses here http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....ight-ends.html concerning what people behind political correctness and multiculturalism really think;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Hitchens

I have always loathed the expression ‘Political Correctness Gone Mad’. PC is not a joke, or an accident, or the work of irrational people.

It is a chilly, deadly-serious project to turn this country into somewhere else, by scaring conservative patriots into a defeated silence.

Every so often, it reveals its true face.

Here is an example. In a Fostering Handbook (The Good Practice Guide) published in 2010 by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, I found the following words: ‘Because the UK is institutionally racist, all white people are implicated unless they actively oppose racism.’

There it is. That’s what they think. We are all guilty until proven innocent. The entire country is infused by a form of wickedness.

---

If that doesn't shock you then I don't know what will.

Thoughts?

"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."

Lol what the hell. Personally hate when people do that as if everyone who supports multiculturalism is also for forced marriage, female circumcision and honour killings. Just because you're in favour of the benefits it brings doesn't mean you can't attack the negatives.

Despite that little misgiving, I have always said that children need a loving and supportive environment and political affiliation very rarely would stop that. I think there are people with extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing ideologies that could seriously damage a child but there's no evidence that UKIP is a part of that so Barnados are just working on assumptions and stereotypes that are unfair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Lol what the hell. Personally hate when people do that as if everyone who supports multiculturalism is also for forced marriage, female circumcision and honour killings. Just because you're in favour of the benefits it brings doesn't mean you can't attack the negatives.

---

But that is the logic of multiculturalism. The rationale behind it is that different cultural practices ought to be accepted or even promoted and ought to be above the law and not be judged by our anglo-saxon Christian culture. I mean, just look at the calls for Sharia Law to be implemented in areas of this country by non-radicals - the logic leads to the conclusion that a different culture will need a different set of laws to live by hence why Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia and not part of Greece. The same can be said for a mainstream Islamic radio station the other day calling for the torture of homosexuals on air, something completely out of step with British culture. Forced marriages are another one, something we barely had a problem with until we had the doctrine of multiculturalism imposed upon us in this country; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18356117

Multiracialism yes, multiculturalism no - for far too long have the two been purposely confused to slur opponents as racist.

Aside from the divides it causes now, think of the future. We have second generation immigrants who have been brought up in Britain and have experienced British culture, yet at the same time they're being taught that they ought to be treated different under their 'own' culture - it messes people up and creates alienation, they don't have a clue who they are or what culture they belong to.

Multiculturalism is the idea that all cultures ought to be treated equally here when it comes to law and/or society - and that's absurd.

Multiculturalism to me is about being open to new ideas that cultures have, it's about acknowledging that a culture is not something you can just throw away but that you can build a new identity which is both compatible with the country you are in (so following its laws, which is why even as a supporter of multiculturalism does not mean that I automatically agree with forced marriages and torturing homosexuals) and your culture. On the other foot, for example, expats to Spain do not suddenly become Spanish. They remain British and form their own expat communities, it's just human nature to stick with what you feel most comfortable with. The wider access to different types of food or ways of cooking could be one example of how access to a wider range of cultures has benefited us.

You have a very distasteful view of what being left-wing means and it does not represent the wide range of views across that spectrum. I doubt there would be very many lefties who would agree with your summary of what multiculturalism is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Multiculturalism to me is about being open to new ideas that cultures have, it's about acknowledging that a culture is not something you can just throw away but that you can build a new identity which is both compatible with the country you are in (so following its laws, which is why even as a supporter of multiculturalism does not mean that I automatically agree with forced marriages and torturing homosexuals) and your culture. On the other foot, for example, expats to Spain do not suddenly become Spanish. They remain British and form their own expat communities, it's just human nature to stick with what you feel most comfortable with. The wider access to different types of food or ways of cooking could be one example of how access to a wider range of cultures has benefited us.

You have a very distasteful view of what being left-wing means and it does not represent the wide range of views across that spectrum. I doubt there would be very many lefties who would agree with your summary of what multiculturalism is.

---

The expat example you've given me is another example of multiculturalism yeah, and I don't agree with that either as it transforms areas of Spain into something that isn't Spain at all - but at least with that example we can say that the expats are bringing in much needed wealth. Ask yourself why we have different countries - because we have different cultures. Do you not think that having different cultures (many totally opposed to one another) will cause trouble and division? especially considering they are using the same political and legal systems? Scotland I consider more or less culturally the same as we, yet even a great proportion of them are wishing to seperate from the United Kingdom.

Having thousands of Somalians living to the east of a city, thousands of Pakistanis living to the west and thousands of Poles living in the south isn't a recipe for success or integration - as seen by calls for Sharia Law to be implemented in majority muslim areas.

If they don't feel they are a part of British culture and have their own - then why would they wish to remain under a British legal or political system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Multiculturalism to me is about being open to new ideas that cultures have

---

But it isn't. It would be a fine thing if we could (and we have in the past) looked at other cultures and adopted better practices here. The process we have now is allowing hundreds of thousands of immigrants into this country (of which we have never given consent for) who form their own ghetto areas where large numbers of them push out the British culture and refuse to integrate.

What's so wonderful and exciting about that? it is dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

it's about acknowledging that a culture is not something you can just throw away but that you can build a new identity which is both compatible with the country you are in

---

Complete hogwash, sorry, sounds like something from a Miss World speech. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

You have a very distasteful view of what being left-wing means and it does not represent the wide range of views across that spectrum. I doubt there would be very many lefties who would agree with your summary of what multiculturalism is.

---

Rotherham Council and the Peter Hitchens quote above have shown us what the left think concerning this issue.

No that shows you what one busybody at Rotherham Council thinks (sadly one who has power to act on their prejudices), not the left. You always make that mistake.

It's not complete hogwash. In general, I believe it to be true. People have their own culture and they integrate it into the social norms required here. That is not to say that it does not have its problems because everything does. I think division is inevitable when people are scared of the 'other', something that isn't them and it's not exactly an irrational fear either but that this is not because of multiculturalism, just human nature!

I think the problem here is that, for example, you believe something like British Muslim to be something that is just not compatible, like chalk and cheese, they just don't go together whereas I believe that these do not necessarily have to be seperate or in competition with each other but that they can be in harmony with each other. A small minority where this is not the case (Islam extremists, for example) do not mean that multiculturalism in general has failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

No that shows you what one busybody at Rotherham Council thinks (sadly one who has power to act on their prejudices), not the left. You always make that mistake.

It's not complete hogwash. In general, I believe it to be true. People have their own culture and they integrate it into the social norms required here. That is not to say that it does not have its problems because everything does. I think division is inevitable when people are scared of the 'other', something that isn't them and it's not exactly an irrational fear either but that this is not because of multiculturalism, just human nature!

I think the problem here is that, for example, you believe something like British Muslim to be something that is just not compatible, like chalk and cheese, they just don't go together whereas I believe that these do not necessarily have to be seperate or in competition with each other but that they can be in harmony with each other. A small minority where this is not the case (Islam extremists, for example) do not mean that multiculturalism in general has failed.

---

Then you've completely misunderstood my argument. The argument for multiculturalism states that you don't have to learn the English language, you have no need to adopt the British culture - that it is perfectly fine if you remain within cultural groups in segregated areas. That is multiculturalism, the idea that you don't need to have an overarching culture and that all cultures ought to be treated equal when they're simply not. I believe you do need an overarching culture, and whilst being Muslim and British is perfectly compatible - it's not compatible to retain the cultural values of Saudi Arabia, Poland, Pakistan, India or any other nation if you wish to live here. Integrate or don't bother coming is the message, and it's achieveable by limiting the numbers who arrive here so that they don't all settle together in large communities.

If you believe in integration and the adoption of a mono-British culture under one legal and political system then you agree with me and don't believe in multiculturalism.

I disagree, I think it's very compatible to have all those cultures living on the same land mixing, sharing and evolving together. I don't think supporters of multiculturalism believe you don't have to learn the host country's language or to ignore the host country's culture. I would say that that was an extreme idea of multiculturalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

I disagree, I think it's very compatible to have all those cultures living on the same land mixing, sharing and evolving together.

---

All sounds lovely, but history has proven it wrong with Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Catalonia and Spain, the United Kingdom and Ireland, the failure of the Nordic Union, the Russians and Poland/Ukraine (pre-Soviet times), Turkey and the Greeks after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, North and South Sudan, the dissolution of Somalia as a political entity, the United States of Central America, the Cyprus question, Italian unification, the American Civil War, China and Tibet and countless other examples including the European project of the last 50 years which is now crumbling to dust as the realisation dawns that there is no European demos and thus no unifying culture.

The central point to ask yourself is, why do we have nation states? because different cultures have different needs that a countries political and legal system must be tailored to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

compatible to have all those cultures living on the same land mixing

---

How does this work when you put democracy, Saudi Arabian attitudes on homosexuality/the family/women and a single political and legal system into the mix? it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

I don't think supporters of multiculturalism believe you don't have to learn the host country's language or to ignore the host country's culture. I would say that that was an extreme idea of multiculturalism.

---

That is what we have now.

While I don't think it's right by any means, but in both recent incidents you believe that the couples should be able to foster and the carer shouldn't be banned. However, when that gay couple were turned away from that hotel you said it was OK as the people have the right to decide. Could you not just say the same here?