Apparently, a narrative propagandised by the Labour Party and SWP and
favoured by Rotherham Borough Council is that the latter’s social services were
unable to tackle a Muslim paedophile gang (although they would not choose to
describe it in such terms) in the town because of ‘understaffing’ and a lack of
funding. However, a story taken up by the Telegraph today suggests that this
‘understaffing’ does not hinder the operations of its social services when it
comes to overzealously applying politically correct strictures. In the case in
question, a couple who have been foster carers for the past seven years have
had three foster children removed from them following a ‘tip-off’ that they
were UKIP members, with the insinuation being that they were ‘racists’. This
‘tip-off’ led to a visit from members of ‘the local safeguarding children team’
who decided upon the basis that the couple were UKIP members that they were
‘unsuitable’ to foster ethnic minority children.
This decision is quite astonishing, for it demonstrates that in
Rotherham the social services have become so politicised and dominated by
far-left precepts relating to race and ethnicity that decent people such as the
couple in question – a former Royal Navy reservist who works with the disabled
and a nursery nurse – may be demonised and denied the right to foster simply
upon the grounds of their belonging to a legitimate political party. Fostering
can be a tough job, and it is well known that those children who are fostered
rather than left in residential care tend to benefit considerably from the
experience, so the decision to remove these three children from carers who were
plainly interested in their welfare and providing them with a loving
environment can be viewed as nothing other than sinister. Contrary to the
deformed dogma that would appear to be embedded within Rotherham’s Labour
dominated Council, it is not ‘racist’ to wish to control our borders and to
place limits upon immigration. Rotherham Borough Council has a lot of explaining
to do in relation to this case.
The Telegraph has done all a service by running this story, but given
that the Rotherham by-election will be taking place on Thursday 29 November,
the timing of the article is quite interesting and suggests that perhaps the
paper may be aiming to give UKIP something of an electoral boost following its
decent showing in Corby. If it does well in Rotherham and the Conservative
Party continues to be dominated by the Europhile Cameroon tendency, might not
the Telegraph consider throwing its weight behind UKIP at some point in the
future?
The by-election itself has been precipitated by the departure of former
MP Denis MacShane, the latest to fall foul of the parliamentary expenses
scandal. With his exit came something of a local row about who would be the
next Labour candidate, with some claiming that the party decided not to run
with a local Muslim because of the fear that this would go down badly with
indigenous voters owing to the recent Muslim paedophile scandal. This seems to
have prompted Respect to field a candidate, the well-known former journalist
named Yvonne Ridley, who appears to still be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
having converted to Islam following her seizure a number of years ago in
Afghanistan. As in Bradford West where George Galloway achieved his landslide
earlier this year, Respect has revealed its brazen ethno-confessional bias by
issuing a leaflet that includes the following text:
"Dear residents,On Thursday the 29th November every voter and most importantly every Muslim and Asian family in Rotherham will have the opportunity to send a message to the sickening racism, Islamophobia and corruption of the Labour party here in this town."
Evidently, given the ethno-confessional composition of this seat,
Respect will not win, but they could remove the Muslim bloc vote from Labour,
which would in itself be noteworthy. The question that begs to be asked
therefore is whether a significant protest vote will manifest itself in
Rotherham following Denis MacShane’s disgrace, the Muslim paedophile cover-up
and now the victimisation of a decent couple because of implied racism. If such
a vote does take place, which party stands to benefit? It will not be the
Conservatives, given Rotherham’s traditional deep red Labour allegiance, and it
will certainly not be the Liberal Democrats. Given that the foster carers
featured in the Telegraph story were themselves once longstanding Labour
voters, it would not come as a surprise were UKIP to perform very strongly next
Thursday.
Joyce Thacker: embodying the spirit of the Stasi?
In one way I would hope UKIP do well if only because it will lead to more problems for the non-conservative globalist CONServative Party but in other respects I hope UKIP don't do well. UKIP have ONE good policy ie to leave the EU (though I am very sceptical about why they wish to leave) and apart from that policy they are part of the problem and not the solution. In the highly improbable event of UKIP taking power, they would take us out of the EU but without the correct economic policy to take full advantage of our new independence.
ReplyDeleteI share your ambivalent position with respect to the most desirable outcome for Thursday’s by-election, for it is true that UKIP possess one good policy: to leave the EU. However, as you note, its economic policy would not lead to national recovery, and could instead lead to an overall worsening of our position as well as to an erosion of public services, a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the super rich and an intensification of globalisation. This is why an alternative to UKIP is required, and it is down to us to create that alternative.
DeletePerhaps the social work department was trying to send a message to Respect that they're on message, ie that democracy has no place in Rotherham when that democracy allows people to make choices the social services disagree with?
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, maybe they're trying to feed the far-left narrative that people who distrust Europe and oppose uncontrolled immigration are "racist" and therefore exclusively white. This would necessitate them snatching the poor kids, who have no place in the narrative.
Joe, it would certainly seem that it is your second point that is at play in Rotherham. I have some experience of working in the area and therefore have come into contact with a number of council professionals, one of whom (without me bringing up the subject of politics) described UKIP as a ‘nasty, far-right, racist party.’ The odd thing is that she’s an otherwise decent person, but thought it perfectly acceptable to make such a bigoted, defamatory and ill-informed comment. None of what she said is true of course, but it would seem that a very rigid orthodox line has been imposed through the Council’s ‘diversity training’. Over the years I have had to seethe through numerous meetings where this claptrap is routinely trotted out and treated as ‘Gospel’, without of course being able to say anything, for the consequences of speaking the truth in such a setting would be highly predictable, unpleasant and serious.
Deletethink common purpose.....
ReplyDeleteJoyce Thacker has already been proven to be Common Purpose.
DeleteIt’ll undoubtedly be in there as part of the mix, ensuring that the diversity dogma is internalised or at the very least paid lip service by all public sector workers. You ought to see the degrading questions that we have to ask of interviewees with respect to demonstrating their 'commitment to diversity'. It makes me sick to the pit of my stomach to have to utter such rubbish, but my colleagues alas, feel rather differently, true believers as they are. They are like students waving Mao's Little Red Book.
DeleteCould you give us some examples of the 'questions', Durotrigan?
DeleteMiddle Englander
If such questions had been around when I applied for my job, I would never have got it. They vary, but include such 'gems' as: 'How would you demonstrate a commitment to diversity?'; 'Could you provide us with examples of how you have dealt with diversity issues in the past?' and 'What is your understanding of "diversity"?'
ReplyDelete"What sort of level of diversity would you want to see in the council workforce?"
ReplyDeleteThe correct answer is definitely not "Approximately the same as that in the population the council serves."
I didn't get invited back for a second interview.
Oh dear. It sounds like you had a gruesome interview experience Derek.
Delete