Disinfo has carried critical articles on the decline of the would-be EU Superstate previously. However, the construction of a ‘new world order’ with the founders of all the world’s major Empires at its heart is viciously, and sometimes blindly, supported by people locked into and controlled by the “left wing” paradigm. It’s an awful irony that these “left wing” advocates claim to believe they’re opposing persecution yet are seen to gleefully persecute others with a different opinion.
The ‘tabloid’ newspaper The Sun summarises the story:
A FOSTER couple claim a council took away three kids from their care — because they belong to UKIP.Despite debate being focused upon the dangers implicit in a continuing centralisation of bureaucratic power the dogmatic so-called left apear to be curiously anxious to push a poisonous racial angle. The BBC reports:
They say social workers told them the party has “racist policies”.
The couple rescued three kids — believed to be from an ethnic minority — in an emergency adoption in September.
Just weeks later, social workers took the trio away after hearing of the couple’s political leanings. The heartbroken mum said: “The implication was that we were racist.”
Read more from The Sun.
Rotherham Borough Council’s Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC: “We always try to place children in a sensible cultural placement.For some readers in the USA it’s important to make a distinction between “the UK” and “England” here. Broadly speaking the United Kingdom is similar to the USA in that it formed to defend itself from external tyranny, in this instance coming from Europe. As with the USA membership has nothing to do with race whatsoever. For many there lies the crucial distinction between the terms. Disinfonaughts will know the word “defence” often extends to military campaigns which stretch its definition. With the UK this led to a world Empire. However, it’s less widely understood that as our Monarchy’s power receded many former subjects were told they were welcome to live in Britain should they wish to make the then near-impossible journey over. Believed to be an empty promise at the time, mass transportation in the industrial age meant some eventually took up the offer. In part this explains the rich racial diversity the islands now enjoy and why generally speaking most people driven by dull notions of ‘racial superiority’ cloak them in the iconography of English nationalism.
“These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children.”
She said the issue related to the party’s policies on immigration issues.
The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future.
FULL STORY FROM THE BBC
More detail on the story comes from a quote given by an apparently flustered and confused UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, in the Telegraph:
“I am outraged politically and very upset for them. I think this is the kind of thing where we need some sort of decree from a Government minister that Ukip is not a racist party.UKIP’s website carries these slightly more composed words:
“This is political prejudice of the very worst kind. It is just a bloody outrage.”
He pointed out that Ukip has a black candidate in the forthcoming Croydon North by-election.
“Rotherham metropolitan borough council has many questions to answer, both publicly and privately.Further details are sketchy because the couple do not want the children identified and upset further, according to The Telegraph:
“They have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias? “Publicly they must make absolutely clear the decision-making process in this case, who was responsible for this decision and why. “That the couple involved were former Labour voters, should give them pause for thought, or do they regard any questions about the level of migration into this country, as Gordon Brown did, as bigotry?“
[The parents have] been fostering for nearly seven years, [...] are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire.It’s telling that early reports are slightly credulous, frequently using words such as “claim” and “they say”. So a note of caution here, the story’s lack of detail and timing have undermined it slightly. Although the above are all ‘reliable’ mainstream media sources there have been a number of quarters who have cast aspersions on the facts involved in the matter. Firstly a carefully worded statement, which falls short of a denial, has appeared on the British Association of Social Workers’ website:
The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.
Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.
They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.
They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.
However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.
They 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.
“I’m sat there and I’m thinking, ‘What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.
“I’ve got mixed race in my family. I said, ‘I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party’.”
The wife said she told the social worker and agency official: “These kids have been loved. These kids have been treated no differently to our own children. We wouldn’t have taken these children on if we had been racist.
”The boy was taken away from them the following day and the two girls were removed at the end of that week.”
The wife said the social worker told her: “We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of Ukip because it wouldn’t have been the right cultural match.”
The wife said she was left “bereft”, adding: “We felt like we were criminals. From having a little baby in my arms, suddenly there was an empty cot. I knew she wouldn’t have been here for ever, but usually there is a build-up of several weeks. I was in tears, although not in front of the social worker.”
Her husband added: “If we were moving the children on to happier circumstances we would be feeling warm and happy. To have it done like that, it’s beyond the pale.”
The couple said they had been “stigmatised and slandered”.
The Telegraph’s version of the story is here.
[We] would not seek to defend this decision based on the limited amount of evidence available, as membership of UKIP should not of itself be a sufficient reason to remove a child or children from a foster placement. We would nonetheless caution against kneejerk condemnation, as so often in such cases the headlines and the realities are some distance apart.It’s clearly written so as not to directly compromise the assumed honesty of the two parents and with a legal point of view in mind. However it equally, and very forcefully by UK standards, suggests they’re skeptical about the reports. Another well written piece has been drawn to my attention by a twitter follower. It features on The Not So Big Society which describes itself as being “written by and for those working in health and social care” in the UK:
[...] willingness on the part of foster parents to respect the culture and background of a child is extremely important, which is why UKIP’s reported position on multiculturalism appears to have been a cause for concern in this case.
However, membership of UKIP should not be considered, as an isolated factor, sufficient reason to dismiss the suitability of a parent or parents, which is why, given the limited information available, this decision is difficult to fully understand.
But does this story have proper substance? [...]Either which way it appears even thinkers inclined towards the “left” believe this recent alleged attack upon opinions contrary to the establishment’s is literally unbelievable.
We also know [..in..] a previous court case [a] judge had criticised the council for not adequately attending to the childrens’ cultural needs.
But as well as what we know, we also have to remember what we don’t know. The local authority will have a duty of confidentiality to these children. They won’t be in a position to go into the ins and outs of why they couldn’t continue to be housed by this particular foster family. When I asked Abe Laurens [a fellow social worker from a childcare background], he commented that, “In my experience such decisions are NEVER made on any single factor alone.” We don’t know what the other factors were.
[Also] There’s a by-election in Rotherham on Thursday. A Labour seat is up for grabs, and UKIP are campaigning hard.
And strangely enough, this has come out at the weekend, when the council would be in the least position to come out with a prompt response. What a coincidence!
It’s almost as if this is a media stunt intended to give UKIP a PR coup on the eve of the by-election.
And with Michael Gove and Ed Miliband lining up to give Rotherham Council a verbal kicking, it’s almost as if they’re desperately trying to avoid losing crucial votes to UKIP on Thursday.
Once again, social workers and vulnerable children are being used as a political football by opportunist politicians. What a surprise.
Original blog entry here
Personally speaking I think it’s unlikely to be without substance given the organisations involved in reporting it.
As always Disinfo welcomes your thoughts in the comments section. More than anything else this seems to me a fascinating case study in the dangers of left-right thinking. Be warned though: if you dare to oppose the EU there may be terrible consquences in store if you are unlucky enough to be a subject of Her Majesty’s Government…
 Libertarianism might be misunderstood in the US but it’s a literally alien concept to the UK. Only the rise of the internet has really allowed it to gradually become a political force for subjects of Her Majesty, The Queen.
 A recent Disinfo article sheds light on why this might be the case. “Serious Challenge To The Milgram Experiment” reports that scientists claim to have discovered people who inflict cruelty actually enjoy doing so if they are led to believe it is in the interests of a “greater good”.
 This explains why the nation apparently has two different flags. One, a red cross on a white background, is called The St George’s Cross and represents England alone. The other more colourful Union flag represents a combination of the respective flags of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Further reading regarding this debate, and attempts to reclaim the St George’s Cross from racists, can be found in this Telegraph article “St George’s flag is a racist symbol says a quarter of the English”. With these distinctions understood it is interesting to note the establishment’s apparent eagerness to encourage individual national identity within the UK and a forthcoming vote on whether Scotland should be given its independence. However to alledge this is part of a specific agenda currently goes beyond the available evidence as I understand it.
 During the election campaign Gordon Brown was asked by a woman who staunchly supported his political party, New Labour, if he was going to try to cut down Eurpoean immigration. The conversation in public was gracious and fair as Mr Brown put his contrary opinion across. However, once he considered himself to be hidden from the general public his true thoughts were captured by a TV microphone which he was unaware of. His furious rant at having been forced to address the issue directly sounded almost like a parody of the dogmatic left’s position. Later realising on live radio that he’d been caught calling an elderly pensioner a ‘bigot’ for asking an apparently reasonable question he claimed to be mortified. Despite his subsequent humiliating personal apology many think it lost him the general election: “Gordon Brown ‘mortified’ by his ‘bigoted woman’ slur”
 This title implies the blog has a strong “left wing” paradigmatic bias as it is a parody of the laughably absurd notion that the “right wing” ruling party, The Conservatives, are trying to build a ‘Big Society’ while simultaniously making savage cuts to the UK’s welfare state.
A side note here, I appreciate the term “New World Order” is significantly loaded but it has been frequently used by Gordon Brown to describe his vision of the necessary consequences of globalisation. It’s a specific political term often used to refer to the EU and its place among the world powers of the future. It is included in the heading of this piece for those reasons.