Coffee House

The prejudice on display in Rotherham

24 November 2012

3:44 PM

24 November 2012

3:44 PM

There are some stories that become more shocking the more you think about them. The case of the Rotherham foster parents who have had the children they were caring for taken away from them for being members of UKIP is one of these. It is hard to imagine the distress that must have been caused to them by this arrogant, ill-thought out decision.

First, UKIP is not a racist party: none of its policy positions could be called racist in any meaningful definition of this term. I’m sure there are some racists who are members of UKIP, just as there are — I suspect — some Labour, Liberal Democrat, Tory and Green members who are racist.


Now, UKIP does take a harder line on EU immigration than the three main parties: the explanation given for why the children were taken away. But this hardly makes it—or, its members—bigoted. To take these children away just because the parents are members of UKIP is prejudice, pure and simple.

The next worrying thing is that Rotherham council’s Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services, Joyce Thacker still doesn’t seem to grasp why the decision was so seriously wrong even, though, she acknowledges that there was no issue with the quality of care these foster parents were providing. Even more worryingly the decision seems to have followed the council seeking legal advice.

By coincidence, there’s a by-election in Rotherham on Thursday following Denis MacShane quitting over his expenses. It’ll be intriguing to see what effect this has on the contest there given that UKIP was already expected to do well.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Gladiatrix

    I think the reference to legal advice has been misunderstood; listening to the Today programme interview my impression was that Ms Thacker was referring to legal advice received following a court case where her department was criticised by a judge. I am not sure that she was talking about the current case.

    In addition, as a LA lawyer myself I am reasonably certain that no lawyer would have told Ms Thacker that UKIP membership was a ground for removing children from a foster placement. Unless the lawyer in question was a) inexperienced; b) incompetent; c) not in full possession of all pertinent facts. Social Services (adults and children) are infamous amongst LA lawyers for withholding important information until the worst possible moment.

    • hexton

      In the interview that I heard, which was on the BBC website, when pressed as to whether the lawyers had advised that the children be removed from their foster parents because of their UKIP membership, Ms Thacker replied: “No, they didn’t say that at all. What they did say was I needed to seriously consider the children’s cultural and ethnic needs, and I had to weigh that into consideration about going forward.” Followed by more stuff about having previously been criticised. Like you, I was not at all sure that this prior criticism related to earlier treatment of the same children.

      [A comprehensive ‘sic’ may be in order, with regard to the quote. It’s definitely Ms Thacker’s syntax on display, not mine.]

      • Colonel Mustard

        The obvious response to this woman’s madness is that if the children’s cultural and ethnic needs are not best served by being brought up in Britain as British by a patriotic British couple then they should not be here in the first place but in Poland or wherever they came from.

        How much more of this cake and eat it nonsense are we expected to fund? Is this Britain or is it Hotel Europa?

    • eeore

      She was not talking about the current case, the judicial criticism Ms Thacker referred was about a previous placement.

      As you say we are not in full possession of the facts, however in similar cases membership of a political party, or being involved with a group or activity, is not the criteria, but what that membership is perceived to imply in relation to the aims and objectives of the department.

  • serguei_p

    I believe it is very important for the future of British Democracy that all involved in this decision including Joyce Thacker have lost their jobs.
    If this does not happen and if this news simply quietly disappears from front pages, it will become just another step on the road to left-wing dictatorship.

  • andagain

    What sort of behaviour do you expect of an institution that can classify everything it does “to protect the children”?

  • Colonel Mustard

    Meanwhile, Mr Cameron demonstrates his priorities, probably hoping the inevitable furore will bury the Common Purpose exposé and his own ill-founded comments about UKIP:-

    “David Cameron is to steam ahead with a ban on cheap booze — and send the price of supermarket brands soaring. The PM plans to over-rule Cabinet colleagues by announcing proposals for a minimum price of 45p a unit within days.”

    He’s a nutter. Get him out of there!

  • Vulture

    In Joyce Thacker and the couple whom she has arbitarily banned from fostering we seen an almost Manichean contrast of good and evil, common decency and Common Purpose.

    In the blue corner we have a patently good people, he an ex-serviceman, she a woman who has given up most of her life to working with charities for little reward devoting themselves to fostering children from a variety of backgrounds, some doubtless ‘difficult’, again for very little reward. Ex-Labour working class, they now for very good reasons support the party that is probably the last best hope for good hard working and honest people like them: UKIP.

    In the red corner we have Joyce Thacker, risen without trace to head a Labour Council’s social services dept. (Who appointed her – and why?). Where the couple have kept schtum about their identities to protect the children, she has been crawling all over the airwaves to cover her own sorry arse and smear anyone who challenges her. A graduate of the secretive and sinister Common Purpose cultural Marxism network, she works night and day to advance her own career, the destruction of Britain, and the triumph of alien, utterly pernicious multi-cultural

    This is night and day, sweet and sour, St Francis v. Savaronola, old fashioned charity versus modern malice and sheer nastiness. A healthy society would vomit Thacker and her wicked ilk out like some putrid poison. It is a measure of our decay that she has the power to carry out her programme of evil. Away with her!

  • Malfleur

    This scandal should be a trigger for a general campaign against political correctness wherever it rears its ugly head. Remember Rotherham!

  • Malfleur

    Demand publication of the minutes of the meetings of the staff of Rotherham Council at which they gave “careful consideration” to the matter before taking action.

  • sunnydayrider

    For all the guff wtitten below, it’s simply politicaly correct socialism. That’s all.

    • Colonel Mustard

      If only. At this point in time that is precisely what Common Purpose want you to believe.

  • J D Bryan

    I fear just as Nationalism Socialism hijacked Germany modern (Hard) Left-wing dogma in the form of Political Correction has hijacked Britain (indeed, the Anglosphere and northwest, plus some of southern, Europe). It’s success is due to the myth it is libertarian, the defender of freedom of expression, indeed the essence of tolerance, anti-racist, internationalist, cosmopolitan. In reality, it is the opposite. It is authoritarian; intolerant of dissent, dogmatic; it’s ideology trumps the truth, it is racist; against whites and non-whites who reject it’s racial politics, it is anti-capitalist, anti-western; thus in practice against the free world, thereby invariably apologist even supportive of anti-western regimes or movements, however vile. Unless, white/westerners are somehow involved it shows little no concern, is silent, when non-whites kill other non-whites. Though, it is anti-fascist the above illustrates it is fascist in all but name. The term “political correction” is a clue.

    PS: Though I must stress, this does not describe all of the Left. For instance, Orwell, Christopher Hitchins, Clair Fox, Mick Hume and others whose intellectual analysis overrides dogma and ideology.

  • Jules

    Apparently the woman in charge is the same woman who offered white girls who had been abused by Asian sex gangs lessons in Urdu, threatened to sack anyone who raised the issue of religion and ethnicity of the perpetrators and claimed the girls were actually ‘making a lifestyle choice’.

    ANYONE who votes Labour in Rotherham needs their head testing.

    • Telemachus the real Teletubby

      Hey that’s my name, lol

  • wrinkledweasel

    People like certainty. They like re-assurance and, what better way to
    underpin a validation of deeply held values than to hear a speaker
    appeal to the emotions that strike a chord. The key, for the speaker
    with ambition, is to be vague. Get specific and you alienate. Stay vague
    and you bring along all. Hitler did this perfectly. He didn’t start out
    by telling the crowds that he was going to gas 6 million Jews, because
    for most, this was not a good thing. What Hitler did was to speak of
    sections of the community who were going against the common will in the
    vaguest terms possible. If I said that what this country needs is a
    return to British values, I wonder how it would go down? Oddly enough, I
    don’t think it would go down well, for “British Values” has become, in
    the eyes of some, synonymous with racism and bigotry. It is all the more
    strange because to me, the term means, above all, enterprise, fairness,
    democracy, freedom of speech and a common purpose. In fact, it is a
    measure of the perversion of language that certain ideas like this have
    become taboo.

    But what did Hitler set out to achieve? In simple terms he set out to
    create a master race, devoid of inferiors. He set out to place Germany
    at the pinnacle of human achievement and spent a lot of time
    constructing an edifice which reflected that. He also removed, by force,
    any opposition.

    In order to whip up support for his vision he needed a scapegoat. He
    needed a scapegoat that would bear on its back all the failures of the
    German people. Scapegoating is a key element in the rise of Fascism.
    There has to be a monster which is incapable of self-defence.

    And so it has come to pass that anyone who seeks to preserve our way of
    life, by, for example, putting limits on immigration, is now termed a
    racist. It’s very clever. Ask the average person what a racist actually
    is and I doubt if you would get a coherent answer. But that does not
    matter, the damage is done. It’s a word which, without being very
    specific, is now a portmanteau for anyone who does not subscribe to
    multiculturalism or unfettered immigration or indeed, the right of
    British People to self-determination. It is all the more a perversion of
    the term that those who come from the other countries in question
    practice such severe forms of racism and fascism that it is incredible
    that anyone gives them right of entry, let alone the right to stir up
    insurrection and hatred.

    I think we have come to a watershed moment. The recent case of a family
    in Rotherham, a decent family who are foster parents, being denied their
    altruism because they voted for UKIP is a kind of marker in the war of
    words and views.

    In a way I sympathize with the people of Rotherham. They voted Labour
    and by association they voted in a Labour-leaning council, whose
    executive must do the will of their leaders. It’s called
    self-determination. We all have a right to elect people who will do our

    The kindly people in this sorry affair have no redress. They have been
    branded racists becausee they voted for UKIP. It is a paradigm of the
    Hitler/Goebbels principle: keep it simple, keep it vague and never
    reveal the true purpose. Those in Rotherham who think they are doing
    some lost young people a favour by denying them a home, have bought into
    an impossible and dangerous dream of ideological purity, the likes of
    which we have not seen since the 1930’s in Germany.

    • Telemachusthe Teletubby

      Excellently put, sir

    • Noa

      hear hear.

    • dodgy

      Actually, the Rotherham Stasi have been emulating the National Socialists in more ways than one.

      Anonymous denunciation was strongly encouraged in 30s and 40s Germany – to the extent that you could not trust any of your neighbours. The populace was so cowed by this that no effective opposition to Hitler could be undertaken. Stalin and Pol Pot also found this suppression of any disagreement very useful.

      I understand that this scandal began when Rotherham Social Services received an anonymous tip off that this family supported UKIP. If I were a Rotherham voter, I would think long and hard before voting UKIP. I have just seen what happens to people who do…

  • Trofim

    Here is a past Wyre Forest constituency UKIP candidate:

    Look up Rustie Lee in Wikipedia.

    And what’s more, just to rub it in, she’s married to a German which means in social-worker-speak “She has turned her back on her cultural heritage”. Good on yer Rustie.

  • Trofim

    Re the children needing to have their “cultural needs” met:

    There is a very handy control group of eastern europeans who were
    fostered with, I imagine, little thought to their cultural needs – The
    10,000 Jewish children who came west on the Kindertransport in

    There are quite a few still alive, and plenty of well-documented
    information as to how they got on in life. It would be interesting to
    hear whether in fact their subsequent lives were satisfactory or not,
    and whether there is a correlation with their “cultural needs” being met,
    and indeed, whether being alive with unmet cultural needs was
    preferable to being gassed

  • anyfool

    This sort of behaviour is not isolated it is normal throughout social services, it is a cancer that can only be stopped by making people like this creature accountable, that will not happen as the people who sit in judgement are the root cause of the problem, they all suckle at the tit of left wing righteousness.
    You can bet that if any are removed from their posts they will walk away with massive cheques and slip into another council sinecure with a higher salary.

  • Koakona

    I watched this with the growing hope that this was surely it, this was surely the straw that will break the camels back, that the veil of political correctness would be torn away and the masses could see with clarity the monster that has bred in their midst. It was even happening on the BBC as if the devil was filming his own demise. Then I read a post about children who died in bins in China. They blamed local officials, claimed this was not systemic, focused on minor issues and made it personal to the easiest scapegoat, then I blinked and ….

  • Marshyman

    My wife and I have been at the bad end of social services when we tried to adopt. After a 3 day course they concluded I was the wrong colour, I was judged a homophobe ( but if I got a letter from a gay family friend, they would reconsider) and I potentially had hang up which I would need to go and see a counsellor. For them my wife was too forthright with here comments on social services and “not friendly” to the staff. We were both professionals, my wife a volunteer for vulnerable adults and I was to become a governor to a primary school. Good incomes and a large family home ready to welcome children in our lives.
    It was a sad day in our lives, and broke our hearts..I cried. But it was truly for children that day who lost a loving mummy and daddy.
    Thanks for nothing Worcester Council.

  • Daniel Maris

    This case is interesting because it brings together a number of strains:

    free speech, political correctness, the influence of Common Purpose, mass immigration.

    The metelite want to suppress free speech (see Leveson – another creature of Common Purpose), enforce political correctness, extend the influence of Common Purpose (which serves the purpose of a political anaesthetic) and make mass immigration permanent.

  • eeore

    This mirrors the case of Arthur Redfearn.

    Quite why anyone is surprised, I’m not sure. For a number of years there has been talk, mainly centred on the BNP, of the ability to sack people based on their support for a political party. And rather than challenge this clearly dangerous policy, the media has either ignored it, or pandered to this blatent breach of human rights.

    Some years ago I contacted Amnesty International about a case in which a train driver was expelled by the union because he supported the BNP. Having spent countless hours writing letters to support their campaigns, on exactly this issue in repressive regimes, I was surprised to say the least that they first claimed they didn’t have a policy on such matters, and then after consultation stated that they would not be taking any action as these were not the kind of human rights they campaigned about.

    But then we live in a culture in which racism is a tag thrown around in a meaningless manner by those with political motivations.

    • HooksLaw

      Even if someone were a member of the BNP they should not be sacked for it. The issue is what they actually say and do and indeed how they fit in with colleagues. Idiots voted for Hitler, they were not necessarily evil, just stupid. There is no law against stupidity

      • eeore

        In point of fact, in the Arthur Redfearn case, the reason they used was that his membership of political party might lead to him being attacked by people opposed to that party. Health and safety if you will.


    And, as the “in” Lefty crowd would say, going forward, can anyone imagine that the full and independent inquiry won’t be a panel of Common Purpose graduates, executives from state sponsored charities, chaired by the Director of Children’s Services from another Stasi council?

    • FrenchNewsonlin

      Remember Balls and the Baby Peter scandal?

      • IRISHBOY

        Indeed so – the doctor who examined Baby Peter presumably was an attractive candidate as she was born black and female thus ticking all those equality and diversity boxes, and the fact that she fell down on acquired characteristics, like having the wit or experience to say “Wiggle your toes Peter”, still left her with enough plus points to get the job.

        And if Hookjob wants to throw around more insubstantial cries of Raaaaaacism, he needs to know that that vicious slur is now almost a total busted flush. Wolf has been cried a million times too often, and people here require a better answer than he managed above.

    • Ron Todd

      The result of the inquiry will be decided before it starts and suitable alternative public sector jobs will already be lined up for anybody that is sacked.

  • triquet

    One of the huge problems with discussion in this country is that anybody of the left persuasion immediately brands anybody on the right as evil and the spawn of the devil. Reason goes out of the window.

  • HooksLaw

    It will give a by election and opinion poll boost to UKIP I would think. I am not at all sure the investigation will go that far but I suspect UKIP are a smokescreen. Labour lefty social engineers do not like the idea of white parents to coloured children.

    It is of course a window into the dark mind of the perverted left winger.

  • FrenchNewsonlin

    “First, UKIP is not a racist party” Even if it were what right in democracy does a social worker have to determine the political choices of any family? Grotesque impertinence and the actions of a police state. Those concerned should be sacked and pursued.

  • Bluesman

    Nasty woman that Thacker. What can be done? I know, allow her to resign “with honour” on full pension and a thick end six-figure payout.

    Nomenklatura – it’s what we do.

  • Peter

    Nice to see the Davies on the Today programme interviewing Farage and immediately linking the name BNP to UKIP amongst other unbalanced transgressions that give away his opinion of UKIP. At least Humphries interviewed Thacker as a proper BBC journalist should. Humphries is self avowed left wing but he recognises the right to free expression and sees the Orwellian threat when it raises it’s ugly head.

    • HooksLaw

      Take a look at Wilhelm above and how he is lapped up. In the circumstances I am appalled.
      Do we get rational and justified criticism of this woman and her department? No, far from it. We see the new buzz word rolled out and the pouring of vitriol. An opportunity to rise above the scum but some simply want to dive back in.the fray but its thrown away.

    • Knives_and_Faux

      Expect no less from the swivel eyed pervert, balls-deep with the Thackers of this world.

  • Daniel Maris

    Well that’s what happens when you let the metelite rule us. Most of your articles seem to favour metelite rule.

    That’s what happens when you think we have to affect disinterest about Mohammed being the tops boys’ name in the country and so delegitimise what are perfectly valid concerns.

    UKIP incidentally has had plenty of non-British European candidates.

  • Swiss Bob

    Joined the party today, the first political party I’ve ever been a member of, I also donated.

    I’ve had enough.

    • Frank Fisher

      I only joined a few weeks ago and had wondered if Id made a mistake; Rotherham settled my concerns. If CP is that scared of UKIP, I want in.

  • William Blakes Ghost

    First, UKIP is not a racist party: none of its policy positions could be called racist in any meaningful definitionof this term. I’m sure there are some racists who are members of UKIP, just as there are—I suspect—some Labour, Liberal Democrat, Tory and
    Green members who are racist.

    Yep it is a truly offensive and obscene decision. Someone might want to tell Paul Goodman that over at Conhome because he is currently digging himself a hole through trying to adapt the smear for cheap Tory Anti UKIP propaganda purposes. Yep the Toxic Tories of the Nasty Party never learn…..

  • ReefKnot

    Apparently Rotherham are looking into their decision. What’s the betting they are desperately searching for some other reason they can use to justify their position.

    • Latimer Alder

      I imagine they’re having an ‘Oh Shit!’ Sunday.


  • wrinkledweasel

    It’s ok if the local MP is a crook because he’s Labour. That’s not the issue though. The issue is the right of local people to elect the kind of administration they want. In this case they want bigoted Stalinists to serve them, people who will carry out their warped ideology. It’s their choice. Why argue the point with them? Why try and impress your views on them? It’s a free country isn’t it?

  • Wilhelm

    Joyce Thacker, the dour faced hag in all her glory.

  • Noa

    “I’m sure there are some racists who are members of UKIP, just as there
    are—I suspect—some Labour, Liberal Democrat, Tory and Green members who
    are racist.”

    Ah racism! The new witch burning.

    The indefensible and undefendable white crime of every guardianista.

  • Enza Ferreri

    After bad PR and lots of pressure, Rotherham Council is now reviewing its decision:

  • ButcombeMan

    A Joyce Thacker appears on the last page.

    “Common Purpose” seems to foster this sort of mind numbing over political correctness and the complete absence of common sense. Graduates spout this garbage as if brainwashed.

    Let us hope the electorate deal with it and give UKIP a boost.

    • Daniel Maris

      Common Purpose is a kind of political anaesthetic isn’t it? Is that it’s purpose?

      • Michele

        Common Purpose does not bother itself so much with politicians, not much point as they can get changed every four years. It focuses more on the public/civil service who have lifetime careers and who are the ones tasked to create the legislation: the police whose role is to enforce that legislation and the media – who control what we find out and what we are to think.

        If you check the ex-CM alumni list, I think you will find there are great many members of the police force and the civil service who now hold senior positions and who actively recruit, appoint and promote other Common Purpose graduates into influential positions.

        As for ‘brain washing’ well, they use a lot of NLP in their programmes and there are those who might agree with you; either way I don’t think I would trust Julia Middleton.

        • Daniel Maris

          So what’s her game then?

  • George Igler

    None of this should remotely “shock” anyone, James. It is the natural consequence, the completely predictable destination, of the trajectory down which we have been heading for decades.

    Every time someone on the Spectator, or any other journalist, has coughed and looked the other way instead of frankly addressing an issue of valid concern, you have all contributed to this. Every occasion when you scroll down on a controversial subject in the Telegraph blogs and discover again that “comments are closed”, we have travelled further down this slippery slope.

    You just need to look at the person at the centre of this, Rotherham council’s Joyce Thacker, to see all this heading in our direction.

    Just ten minutes on Google produced this:
    and this:

    Scroll down and read what “D Jones” comments too. This person has been in plain sight causing untold misery to countless children for years across Northern England, and why shouldn’t she have done? None of her behaviour has been at odds with prevailing and generally-speaking unchallenged bien pensant opinion.

    • Wilhelm

      Thanks for link, D Jones says

      ” I have met Joyce Thacker on a few occasions, whilst she was head of Bradford youth service. At the moment there is an a yet to emerge story regarding grooming and child abuse in the Bradford/ Keighley area that is equal to if not bigger than the terrible events in Rotherham (see Anne Cryer MP, who has been vocal on this) Joyce Thacker oversaw the stopping of prosecutions, the stopping of the ‘groming and let the repeated rapes carry on…they still are going on.

      She had a reputation with staff as someone who would attack them in a brutal manner if they had the temerity to challenge her. I know that one of her lines was that if staff mentioned abuse by asian men, they would be dismissed for racism. As you can imagine, they were not happy bunnies, as some staff were working directy with victims.

      Mrs Thacker has a track record in colluding with and covering up abuse.She shoud face criminal prosecution for this collusion. She has little professional experience or training in child protection. In Bradford she left a ‘disrupted,’ youth service and a general atmosphere of fear regarding senior management

      I worked for a charity project, and viewed with horror, her actions
      (in-actions!) and was disturbed when she got the job in Rotherham.Mabye
      she got the job as she is skilled in cover up, blaming others and
      dodging the bullets.

      A word of warning; Joyce will be swift and nasty when challenged,
      blaming anyone and smearing them as much as she can. If she was profiled
      by a psychologist, the report would match that of a sociopath.”

      • HooksLaw

        I suspect there is a very dark can of worms wriggling its way through the Labour party in all of this.

        Given the sudden atmosphere of accusation following on from Saville I wonder if there will be a proper investigation?

        • Andy

          Wonder if Tom Watson will be gobbing off about this. Thought not.

      • ButcombeMan

        Curiouser & curiouser.

        Has anyone noticed that the media are not mentioning the “Common Purpose” element?

        • eeore

          “The charity concerned, Common Purpose, is the subject of far too much
          conspiracist chatter on the Internet. But its essential aim is to train a
          network of “future leaders” – to help create a new, broadly
          left-liberal, establishment, if you like.”

          Andrew Gilligan

          • Colonel Mustard

            Maybe it wouldn’t be the subject of “conspiracist chatter” (how to measure “far too much” and by whose criteria?) if it was less secretive and had a democratic mandate. No mention of this story on the BBC news this morning, true to their CP affiliations.

          • ButcombeMan

            I know what it is, I come across it all the time, More pervasive than Freemasonry used to be. Highly secretive and manipulative of recruits. The culture it creates works against what it /says/ it sets out to do, It is one of the reasons so much of UK PLC and that liberal establishment is dysfunctional. It fosters enclaves of over political correctness such as in Rotherham.

            So pervasive is it, that until recently it was never discussed in the media and the public generally remain largely ignorant of its existence while being bemused at what they see.

            It is an undemocratic social control mechanism.

            The Dutch (wise folk) have shut its shop there.

      • TomTom

        If you see how much money Bradford spends on buying capacity for youh social services from other Councils you would weep. Now that Brown has merged Education and Child Social Services people like Thacker are able to become Head Teachers with Social Worker qualifications. Bradford Council is a cesspit of corruption rivalled only by West Yorkshire Police

        • eeore

          And most of it funded by Ilkley and Keighley, who happen to get the least of the pie, and explains why they are campaigning to devolve from Bradford council.

    • eeore

      It doesn’t surprise me that she came from Bradford,

      The flat upstairs was rented to an Iraqi who regularly held parties in which up to 15 of his friends would meet up to ‘rape’ young girls. A week or so later you would see him leading them off to ply their trade on Rebecca Street.

      This was reported to the police, who said it wasn’t their business and it should be reported to the social services. Social Services promptly informed those who followed the police advice that they were racists and social services would be contacting the Housing Association to get them evicted.

      Oh the joys of hearing the screams before the smack kicked in. Or their cheery street cries of ‘fuck me for a fiver’ as they wandered the streets at 2 o clock when they hadn’t made their ‘rent’. And oh the pleasure of seeing the police, on TV when the crossbow cannibal started killing them, claiming that they had done everything they could to police the area, when they had done precisely bog all.

    • telemachus

      How can you and Wilhem pin the misdeeds of an errant official on one particular party?
      That is as bad as the alledged errant actions Friday last (which by the way are abhorrent-but you forgot that bit)

      • Telemachus the Teletubby

        Because e council is Labour run, and if they disagreed with the policy they would have acted to change it.

    • TomTom
  • Richard 111

    Discuss: “Is Rotherham MBC institutionally racist?”

    • Telemachus the teletubby

      Discuss: is the Labour Party institutionally racist?

  • shelltop

    Wanting to control immigration is not racist, in fact it could be said that it will ultimately improve race relations.

    • Daniel Maris

      You couldn’t be more right. Many of the new immigrant communities from East Europe and South Asia are incredibly racist, far more racist than the communities established here for hundreds or thousands of years.

    • Redneck

      Shelltop, Wilhelm and fubarroso

      Agree with you, to express that the recent rate of uncontrolled immigration is perhaps not in the best interests of the UK is not a racist statement.

      However, if this condemnation is repeatedly enforced then it becomes a very powerful silencer of any dissent. How Mr Morsi would love this type of power, suspect he’ll be sending a fact-finding mission to Rotherham very soon?

  • Wilhelm

    As we all know, there’s the good reason and then there’s the real reason

    The good reason = the Labour party want to help refugees fleeing persecution.
    The real reason = the Labour party can use African / muslim mass immigration as a voting base.

    Incidentally, the Conservative party are up to their necks in pro immigration policies, but they’re coming to it from a different angle, they can have cheap nannies, gardeners, cleaners etc etc.

    Meanwhile, it’s a lose lose for the indigenous British Volk

    • HooksLaw

      Funny to see such a racist comment getting so much support given the topic. One might think that this was one occasion when UKIPers would slap Wilhelm down.
      And, whats with this ‘Volk’ business – we all know who used that word.

      • fubarroso

        Sorry Hooky, I must be a little slow this evening, and I not trying to be facetious, but could you please point out what part of Wilhelm’s comment you consider racist? I read it through twice and couldn’t find it? Was it perhaps his use of the term “indigenous British”?

        • HooksLaw

          The whole comment is racist. And all Wilhelms comments are race based. He is slime.

          You are an idiot if you think otherwise.

          • Redneck


            Could you clarify which of the following statements are acceptable?
            1. There is no level of immigration that could justify questioning it?
            2. If I show any resentment towards a wholesale shift in the local populace, with whom I have grown up, then I am a racist?
            3. I should welcome the opportunity for some of my tax payments to go to people who regard me as infidel scum?
            4. It is racist to be perturbed by local children being gang raped by Pakistani males?

          • eeore

            “We’ve always been English and we’ll always be English; and it’s precisely because we are English that we’re sticking up for our right to be Burgundians!”

      • eeore

        Odd that you resort to the ‘r’ word. Whatever happened to the mantra of being happy to take on the arguments of the far right because it was so easy to knock them down?

    • eeore

      You have spelled folk incorrectly.

  • Colonel Mustard

    Could we please have a picture of the Common Purpose activist, apparatchik and bigot Thacker on this blog?

    • biggestaspidistra

      She has dead eyes, has been programmed or “adjusted” to correctness, probably not much of a brain but otherwise appears pleasant. Many council workers seem to aspire to this same condition.

    • Heartless etc.,

      Good idea! I have my dartboard ready!

    • Wilhelm

      I saw her on SKY news this morning, a hard faced, cold hearted, marxist witch.

      She is the type of woman who would have knitted dementedly, sitting beside the guillotine, screaming for more blood, during the Reign of Terror. Tricoteuse is the name for these types.

      • Michele

        How very dare you – what an insult to witches!!! Furthermore, she is supported in her action by the male contingent of the council – so less of this silly anti-female tirade –or you might turn into a frog!

  • NiceTeaParty

    This isn’t just a bit of sillyness or a professional misjudgment.

    This is a state apparatchik removing a child from a family because she doesn’t like their politics.

    This is straight out of the GDR.

    • Framer

      Worse, this was an emergency temporary placement and the jobsworths in the council spent hours discussing their discovery of the foster parents’ UKIP sympathies (who was the informant?), getting legal advice and then removing the children, who were presumably needing a fragment of stability above else else.

      Sack Ms Thacker without compensation and let her sue.

    • Russell

      Exactly what people should expect of a Labour Council. Fraudulent MP’s and Council workers specifying how people should vote!
      This woman should be sacked with no pay-off, no years salary, nothing except a guarantee she will never be allowed in a position of power.

  • Colonel Mustard

    It’s all good and well for us to condemn and/or challenge this decision but why is it that when these sort of stories emerge, as they do with regular monotony these days, the government remains silent and appears to do nothing about them? If this was a leftist inspired “outrage” over one their pet causes Cameron would be in the pulpit giving us his view in a trice, followed by a constant worrying in the media until the pressure groups got what they wanted. But because it is UKIP and the whiff of “racism” has been invoked it appears that those who are responsible for championing our democracy appear to run and hide.

    Where is that woman from Amnesty now? Where are all the other public figures who proclaim so loudly about equality and fairness? If diversity and democracy mean anything then surely it is the right of a couple who belong to a legitimate political party to bring up foster children within a loving family without the censure of officials on grounds that epitomise bigotry, identity group politics and the total, absolute absence of compassion.

    • Heartless etc.,

      Remember the assumption(s) that the H2B would sweep away all the Bliarist PC bullshit, cleanse the Stables, have a QUANGO bonfire and perfom many other welcome feats of Conservatism?


      (Answer not required)

    • telemachus

      I still do not believe it true
      But if it is the prpetrator needs not only to be fired but prosecuted
      telemachus has views on the right and europe but they are never to be construed as personal or with personal consequences for the miscreants

      • Austin Barry

        Writing about yourself in the third person is a sure sign of madness. Not, mind you, that the readers of CoffeeHouse have any remaining doubt.

        • telemachus

          The conscience of the telemachus collective is clear on this matter
          It mattereth not what folk think of us
          We know we are right

          • Telemachus the teletubby

            The arrogance of socialism. Socialism will never evolve because it is incapable of accepting new ideas, so over time it will die. Even the Chinese communist party had to accept change because it realise it couldn’t survive without it. In time, communism will collapse in china because people will want freedom. In this country, socialism has turned n to a device to control people’s thoughts and so many aspects of people’s lives. Surely, to be human is to have free expression of views without interference. This obviously hasn’t happened in Rotherham. Who do you think you are, some omnipotent being!

          • Marian Thomson

            Are you part of the Borg???

            • Telemachus the Teletubby

              Resistance to our multicultural policies are fulite, you will be assimilated and your national distinctiveness will be added to EU own.

          • Guest

            Glad something is clear for someone at least, though why don’t you eschew all the conventions of the written word and leave out all the spaces, andforsureanyherewhostillreadanyofyourguffwontfinditanylesscomprehensiblethantheacresofscreenspaceyouusuallycontaminate

          • Colonel Mustard

            You sound a bit like Smeagle/Gollum.

            Attributing a “collective” to you was not meant to be a compliment.

      • Airey Belvoir

        This third person usage is logical if ‘Telemachus’ is a number of people at Labour HQ on shifts, as may well be the case.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Not sure about Labour. Maybe UAF or some other loony left outfit.

    • John_Page

      The govt has not remained silent – Gove (it’s his department) has been all over the media.

      • Colonel Mustard

        I was not referring just to this case. But even so, not good enough.

        I have heard nothing from Cameron although Miliband has spoken. In their coverage the BBC mentioned the children’s background, the parents background, even Gove’s background – as an adopted child himself – but no mention of Thacker’s Common Purpose credentials. No mention of the Common Purpose links at all and yet they can be found lurking in almost every rotten thing happening in Britain.

      • Anna

        Gove, although so far not Cameron, has rightly condemned the incident but so far as I know has only referred to the iniquity of prejudice against members of ‘a mainstream political party’. He hasn’t mentioned UKIP by name nor addressed the smear of racism, both of particular relevance.

        I can understand why Cameron is keeping a low profile. What can he say having already smeared UKIP members in exactly that way? Since he clearly agrees with the charge of racism against these unfortunate foster parents, presumably he thinks it quite correct that the children should have been removed. Or does he think that racism in foster parents should have no bearing? It will be amusing to watch him wriggling on that particular hook if any journalist has the guts to make him.

        • IRISHBOY

          Would that any journalist (I know, I use the word in a very broad way) on the Spectator would ask Cameron if he thought that describing UKIP supporters as fruitcakes, closet racists and xenophobes in any way contributed to the break down of legitimate political debate, and that such smearing gives comfort to the enemies of a free and open society?
          About as much chance of them asking Harman and Hewitt whether their view that adults having sex with children could be an enhancing, fulfilling experience.
          No journalists here. Just another layer of patsies.

          • Redneck


            Very valid points. Would be honourable, in my opinion, were the Spectator Editors to give you an honest answer.

            • IRISHBOY

              I often give Fraser a dig about his not wanting to be struck off anyone’s Xmas card list, an entirely imaginary conceit of my own, but sometimes I wonder what constrains journalists from going for the jugular. In the face of the viciousness with which the spread of socialism is enforced, polite restraint can only be regarded as a failure of their duty and vocation.
              And I hear No 10 says that Cameron won’t retract his statement he made about UKIP being racists, but he doesn’t now think that. Funny that so much fuss was made over the word pleb . . . . .

              • Noa

                It’s funny isn’t it, Irishboy, how Cameron can apologise for something he didn’t do,; the Hillsborough disaster and the South Yorkshire police cover up (again!) and yet be too much of a moral coward to do so for something he did.
                Still, that would mean saying UKIP was right…

                • IRISHBOY

                  Quite. It’s the moral, Ha Ha, equivalent of socialists spending other people’s money.

              • 2trueblue

                I was horrified to hear Cameron describe UKIP supporters in such terms. He lost what little respect I had for him. He is losing the plot and underestimating the UKIP voters is dangerous. He also underestimated the effect that UKIP had at the last election, it lost him his majority, and will happen again. Such behavior Is was not worthy of a leader to act in such a way, and shows a lack of reality and connection with what is happening.

              • Wilhelm

                The National Union of Journalists guidelines on reporting black / muslim crime ( don’t mention their race )

                1. Only mention someone’s race if it is strictly relevant. Check to make sure you have it right. Would you mention race if the person was white?

                2. Do not sensationalise race relations issues; it harms black people and it could harm you.

                3. Think carefully about the words you use. Words which were once in common usage are now considered offensive, e.g. half-caste and coloured. Use mixed-race and black instead. Black can cover people of Arab, Asian, Chinese and African origin. Ask people how they define themselves.

                4. Immigrant is often used as a term of abuse. Do not use it unless the person really is an immigrant. Most black people in Britain were born here and most immigrants are white.

                5. Do not make assumptions about a person’s cultural background – whether it is their name or religious detail. Ask them or where it is not possible check with the local race equality council.

                6. Investigate the treatment of black people in education, health, employment and housing. Do not forget travellers and gypsies.Cover their lives and concerns. Seek the views of their representatives.

                7. Remember that black communities are culturally diverse. Get a full and correct view from representative organisations.

                8. Press for equal opportunities for employment for black staff.

                9. Do not sensationalise by reports, photographs, film or presentation the activities of racist organisations.

                10. Seek to publish or broadcast material exposing the myths and lies of racist organisations and their anti-social behaviour.

                11. Do not allow the letters column or ‘phone-in’ programmes to be used to spread racial hatred in whatever guise.


        • Daniel Maris

          Good point Anna, he did didn’t he…?

        • Colonel Mustard

          Cameron is immature and incontinent in articulating personal opinions and prejudices that have no place coming from the office of Prime Minister but instead cause great mischief – not least to him. One might have expected him to learn by now but not a bit of it. His position is to serve the British people not provide a pulpit for his view of the world. He is really caught on this one thanks to his earlier and stupid denunciation of UKIP and once again out of sync with the majority of peoples reactions.

          He is a silly wee man and demonstrates his silliness with tiresome regularity.

          • Noa

            As so often Colonel, an aimed and measured volley, delivered at 50 paces.

        • ButcombeMan

          Cameron is a part of the problem, he will never be the solution to gripping the pervasive soft-left ethos of Common Purpose, which has so damaged the UK.

          Nothing works. Our institutions are dysfunctional. Ever wondered why?

          Most politicians will not discuss it. The simple reason being that too many are complicit. The BBC is riddled with it.

          Cameron has withdrawn his smearing of UKIP but the fact that he ever said it will not go away. It shows how far away, he was and is, from the the hopes, fears and aspirations of the British people. It shows how little he understands of our national character.

    • HooksLaw

      Gove has criticised the decision. And its his department that has responsibility isn’t it?
      Come on be fair. Why twist everything onto the government? yet again you want to leap onto Cameron. If you cannot see the prejudice in this then … well I’d better stop.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Well, simply because Cameron tends to use topical news as an opportunity to parade his personal values even when the subject is of little direct relevance to the office of Prime Minister. Also, he ranted at length on the nanny state before the election and promised to “sweep it all away”. He has not, in fact quite the opposite, so I suggest that he is fair game.

        This is an appalling case and I want to know my Prime Minister’s views on it. If he remains silent I shall conclude his loyalties lie more with Common Purpose than with our democracy and the British people as a whole.

        • Redneck


          Well said, my opinion exactly.

          Mr Cameron please say something, this is appalling. Are you giving tacit approval to judging people by what Party they support and also allowing Pakistani-British men to gang rape Caucasian-British children.

          If so, you are truly an abomination and should hang your head in shame. What if it were your daughter?

        • HooksLaw

          This is a labour party lefty bigot fiasco and hey presto cameron comes into it.
          Your laughable, not least because you have discovered a new bogy phrase.

          • Colonel Mustard

            No, Cameron uttered the phrase “sweep it all away”. It was a promise he made before the election and which he reasserted in the coalition agreement.

            And you are just abusive, as usual.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Update: Cameron has come into it. According to Channel 4 News he thinks that UKIP are “closet racists” and therefore agrees with Thacker (are they both Common Purpose graduates?). Oh, hold on, according to No.10 no he doesn’t. Oh, hold on, according to No.10 that doesn’t mean he has retracted his previous comment on UKIP.

            And you support this buffoon? As an arch opponent of Labour it says something when I think Miliband’s comment on this appalling story makes more sense that Cameron’s ridiculous twisting and turning in the crossfire of his own contradictions.

            It might have been a “labour party lefty bigot fiasco” but Cameron has now managed to make it a fiasco for the office of Prime Minister.

            • Noa

              Yes. These are his principles. But if you don’t like them he has others.

        • ButcombeMan

          We all want to hear his views.

          I predict they will be vacuous and woolly.

          What is the betting he never mentions the causative CP ethos?

          They are all in it together.

      • 2trueblue

        Because Cameron is on record currently giving his view on UKIP so has made himself in the ballpark. Frankly he is behaving like a yob.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Rotherham swung into action to remove well cared for loved kids because of ‘cultural needs’ even though it was a short term placement

    Rotherham sat around for years watching Pakistani muslim gangs destroying the lives of young white girls, presumably ot protect their cultural needs?

    The left are out of control and we have no one who will deal with it.

    • telemachus

      you cannot link this criminal stupidity-
      I mean the ukip thing to the sensitive issue of the child abuse

      • Noa

        Yes you can.

        The cause has the same root. It is the malevolent fallacy of multicultural ism which has been used to demonise English patriotism whilst simultaneously defending racist muslim child molesters of Pakistani origin.

        In this instance the Head of Child Protection Services perfectly embodies the successful culmination of common purpose marxism.

        • dalai guevara

          defending? hear hear.

        • telemachus

          What on earth has the multiculturalism(a philosophy allows national cohesion but mutual respect of origins) argument got to do with this-for other points see reply to Thomas Paine below

          • Noa

            See Hehhamgeezer’s very clear and simple explanation below.

          • Telemachus the Teletubby

            But it doesn’t encourage mutual respect. It encourages local enclaves, ie Sparkbrook in Birmingham, nd allows Muslim men to go around local communities taking advantage of white girls. Something that is being covered up as we speak. It allows intolerance of Christians to wear crosses but allows another religion to carry knifes. We should all live under the same was nd enjoy the same freedoms as everybody else. Tolerance of all views, and religious rights plied by and to all inhabitants of this island.

          • Carol-Ann


            Joyce Thacker cited UKIP’s opposition to ‘mulitculturalism’ as the reason for removing the children.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Is it a philosophy or a policy? Is your definition the “official” one? If so, when it was formally introduced, by who and on what basis? Were the English people ever asked if they wished their country to become “multi-cultural” in a political and ideological sense when it has always been multicultural in a real sense?

            It seems to have just happened. It seems that there is no fixed definition but that it is dependent on political viewpoints. I am aware of no situation in the past, before the “official” adoption of multi-culturalism as a policy imperative for local government, when cultural differences or adherences in England were ever “forbidden”.

            • telemachus

              At its simplest multiculturalism is where people have their own cultural beliefs and they happily coexist, but have a common thread of Britishness to hold society together.

              It is the maturer way to respond to cultural and religious differences. Mere toleration of group differences falls short of treating members of minority groups as equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required. It allows/recognises rights are held by individual members of minority groups. For example can be granted exemptions from generally applicable laws in
              virtue of their religious beliefs or individuals who seek language
              accommodations in schools or in voting.

              As noted above this multicultural philosophy allows national
              cohesion but mutual respect of origins

              • telemachus

                But we are all getting away from utter outright condemnation of the Rotherham actions
                Even Cameron who issued some mealy mouthed condemnation refused to withdraw his “fruitcakes and racists” description of UKIP.
                Mind the UKIP leader is milking it for purposes beyond the injustice.
                In both Sky and BBC interviews he used the Andrew Neather card.
                That is because he is of limited vision and is strong on plagiarism

              • telemachus

                PS there was an excellent Common Purpose seminar on multiculturalism in Birmingham last May.

                • Malfleur

                  How’s your support for Stalin holding up?

                • telemachus

                  As Common Purpose educates through its seminars Joseph Stalin gave leadership by example and turned a nation of Serfs into a Proud Patriotic people

                • Noa

                  “…turned a nation of Serfs into a Proud Patriotic people.”

                  Bwaaaarghhhhh! (homage a Frank P, excluded apostate of this parish).

                  You conveniently forgot to mention the 50 million the mustachioed old barsteward had murdered by your other heroes the NKVD.

                  And look who you see as the new kulaks in your Marxist paradise-the original white British!

                • jjcassidy

                  Stalin gave leadership by example and turned a nation of Serfs into a Proud Patriotic people

                  And then there was the purges for people who wouldn’t be turned by the paranoid neurotic. It’s amazing how easy mass graves make it to “turn a nation” into a consistent group of something.

                • GaryEssex

                  An oxymoron if ever there was one.

              • Colonel Mustard

                Sounds like a recipe for sectarianism to me because it presumes rather foolishly that the “group differences” will be as benign as the wish-washy liberalism that promulgated the nonsense. Britishness is defined by a shared heritage, culture and language. Birthright comes into it but is no barrier to those from abroad who wish to embrace the first three – or at least, at the minimum, to respect and not to offend them. What we have is something rather different. An embrace of polyglot chaos at significant taxpayer expense with little or no quantifiable benefit to the host nation, presided over by people of dubious political affiliation who demonstrate a naive and dangerous ethnic romanticism towards the Third World but a degree of self-hate and/or guilt towards their own indigenous roots. The whole construct is unhealthy and impractical.

                And, in terms of exempting from law where is the line to be drawn? We have already seen horrendous inequalities as a result of this which further undermine the rule of law which has been this nation’s cornerstone for centuries. This is not about Sikhs and crash helmets but rather the treatment of women, and children and homosexuals. Are African witchcraft practices a “religious belief” to be exempted from law?

                As with most barmy left-wing ideology this founders in practice and creates many more problems than it solves, essentially because the barmy left-wing believe that a society can be constructed to their image rather than evolve. It also requires the diversion of enormous amounts of treasure and time to the impossible task of addressing the minutiae required to overcome the horde of contradictions and issues it throws up. Each attempt to resolve these just throws up even more contradictions and complications. Great for jobsworths, legislators and meddlers; not so much fun for the rest of us.

                This is Britain. Get over it. Welcome to come and join us but don’t expect 500 to change to accommodate 50.

                • Simon Morgan

                  Colonel Mustard – I salute you. That was the most comprehensive, concise and eloquent dismissal of multicultural I have ever read.

                  If only telemachus had the wherewithal and honesty to recognize this as game, set and match.

              • George Igler

                “At its simplest multiculturalism is where people have their own cultural beliefs and they happily coexist, but have a common thread of Britishness to hold society together.”

                Surely not even you can be this dim-witted? Multiculturalism is not a policy to deal with the unforeseen consequences of mass immigration, it’s just the name we give to not having any such policy.

                Whereas previously, ghettoised and atomised cultural and ethnic groups not mixing and not integrating with each other, because there is no unifying enforcement of values, loyalties or even the requirement to have linguistic commonality, was rightly seen as a grave and growing problem, what multiculturalism accomplishes (and all it accomplishes) is the ability for people not to face up to these issues by pretending they are not there, and redefining these problems instead as “strengths”.

                All multiculturalism is, is a tool, not for communities, but for the political establishment. It merely allows them to kick the can of these issues further and further down the road; heaping them, like the national debt, onto the shoulders of people who will never hold them to account at the ballot box: our children and grandchildren.

                Multiculturalism just conveniently provides people with the desperate excuse their subconsciousnesses are searching for to look the other way, and pretend these problems are not there. While also, achieving neat trick of calling those who point to the problems as the “real” obstacles to integration.

              • Biggestaspidistra

                Multi culturalism didn’t work. A mult-ethnic society doesn’t have to mean a multi-cultural society. We should aim for a multi-ethnic society that respects the established rights and privileges of men, women and children in British society. Multi-culturalism imports unacceptable prejudices and practices that weaken a free and advanced society and ultimately stigmatises and ostracises minorities.

              • PaD


          • Hugh

            Er, Thacker has said that a central part of her reasoning was UKIP’s opposition to multiculturalism.

      • Ian Batten

        Other than the same person who presided over official tolerance of child abuse being responsible for this debacle as well.

        • HooksLaw

          I am not disagreeing with you, but why is she still in a job? Where is Miliband? what is his position on what is clearly an out of control council and its officers.

      • Thomas Paine

        Sorry Telemachus I’m with you a lot of the time poking a stick at the more absurd practices of Cameron, Osborne & co but I’m afraid this is a classic example of PC absolutism on the march. Papal infallibility is now out of fashion but we now have PC infallibility whereby anyone who doesn’t conform to a list of approved ’21st century’ opinions is regarded as a thoroughly evil person in need of anything from compulsory re-education at best, or to criminal charges and trial by media at worst.

        • telemachus

          As I understand it now the chief bottle washer here had been criticised by a judge in this particular case in the past for not taking account of ethnic concerns. It was clearly handled appallingly but was totally different from the shared slow to react actions of principally police in the abuse cases. This latter was common to a number of northern towns. I am sad that posters here are trying to make political capital out of this calumny

      • Hexhamgeezer

        Yes you can you tit. It is the same organisation, the same council, the same ideology, the same racism, the same aims, the same social engineering, the same values, the same arrogance, the same hatred, and the lack of accountability and the same project ‘detoxifying’ the nation and the same rubbing the rights/whites faces in it.

        • telemachus

          I will accept incompetence but none of the above
          Reds under the bed went out in the sixties

          • Hexhamgeezer

            They aren’t under the bed you tit. They are in it and have thrown the owner out.

            • Telemachus the teletubby

              You again, don’t steal my identity. I use it to annoy the self righteous Teletubby himself.

          • Telemachus the teletubby

            Hey teletubby, What they are doing in Rotherham is what every Labour council in the land does.

          • Colonel Mustard

            The Reds are indeed no longer under the bed, telemachus. They are in a town hall near you determining policy and stretching their Common Purpose tentacles into controlling more and more aspects of our once free, private, English lives.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        The only thing to which you are sensitive in these matters is exposure.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Of course you can. The link is there for all to see

    • Noa

      Perhaps, in our horrified reaction to the political commissars, we’ve forgotten to consider other relevant points, that:
      -adoptions determine the political direction of future voters, so children will not be placed with political enemies but in aggressively Leftist environments
      -the state funding and financial benefits associated with adoption are similarly directed.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        Aye, whether consciously or unconsciously that’s what they are aiming at. I do, though, have faith in some innate ability of kids to eventually sus out that they are being ‘had’.

        History shows these Stalinists that they will never be able to create their prized homo sovieticus – they will fail but unfortunately their hate for human nature can never be extinguished so they will try and fail again and again.

        • Noa

          homo sovieticus- yes, that’s an apt description. Well, maybe they have to be adults to fully embrace the cult; witness telemachus.

          Even so they can do a lot of damage, challenging the ingrained shibboleth of the fallacious doctrine of equality can be virtually impossible for a child brought up with it.

  • Joss Malone

    How about the prejudice on display in UKIP?

    • Noa

      What prejudice?

  • Gerry Dorrian

    Good article. UKIP espouses nothing that hasn’t at some time been embraced by Labour or Conservative politicians. The thing is, Social Services trialled political child-snatching by practicing or threatening to practice it on members of the English Defence League and Rotherham Borough Council’s lawyers have precendents to point to. Fascism always shows its hand on people furthest away from the centre of public opinion, and moves inwards.

    • HooksLaw

      Well the word used by the officials was i believe multiculturalism.
      I don’t know what the libdem position is on this, its probably different according to the vote they are after, but labour supported it. Conservatives have not been in favour. Its a product of left wing social engineering.

  • Bob

    It’s difficult not to think of tragic, little Jasmine Beckford in the eighties-I hope I’ve spelled her name right,-removed from white foster parents by Social Workers, keen to promote her sense of ethnic identity, and returned to her violent, unhinged father-who then beat her to death. Still, I suppose its better to be murdered by ”one of her own”, as those responsible probably saw it, than by the descendants of colonial oppressors. I remember wondering at the time why some on the left thought appartheid was a social evil in South Africa, but a positive thing in parts of London. I hope this most recent example of blind ‘progressive’ authoritarianism is legally challenged.

  • John_Page

    I don’t agree with Joyce Thacker’s decision. But she keeps saying a judge had severely criticised them in the past for ignoring children’s cultural needs. What was that judgement and were they the same children?

    Second, if this was only an emergency short term placement, what relevance do the long term cultural needs have?

    • telemachus

      As I have posted elsewhere, I am sur there is more to it than the Telegraph has reported
      I am certain the Telegraph are being mischievous
      Yes UKIP is full of crackpots but percentagewise not as many as the Libdems.
      Yes they are dangerous crackpots for wanting to pull us out of Europe but then the Libdems are dangerous crackpots for getting us into this disastrous coalition.
      Question should we proscribe Nick Clegg from fostering because of his crackpottedness compounded by 30-Girls-to-bed debauchery?

      • chudsmania

        We are in europe……Has the map changed ? the likes of you are just as dangerous as the crackpots in Rotherham.

        • Faceless Bureaucrat

          In Europe, not run by Europe…

        • Latimer Alder

          Don’t be stupid.

          You are confusing the geographic entity ‘Europe’ with a political entity
          ‘The European Union’.

          Surely you can do better than this?

          Or maybe not…. 🙁

      • HooksLaw

        The Telegraph like the Guardian and other papers are simply reporting the facts.

    • notme3

      maybe the judge meant her department wholesale ignoring endemic sexual abuse of young white girls by pakistani muslims, because they were white girls.

    • Latimer Alder

      Your first question s very germane.

      Can anyone find the judgement concerned and list the circumstances adn criticims made.

      Or was it (conveniently) in a secret family court where proceedings may not be reported? If so, Ms Thacker has official carte blanche to make up anything she likes as a justification without fear of contradiction.

  • Austin Barry

    Orwell just got the year wrong.
    We’re almost there.

    • telemachus

      Just seen Farage on you tube
      He played an out of order interviewer well
      Why are UKIP stoking this up now the interviewer asked
      Stupid question when the Council removed the children Friday last
      Strike one Nigel

  • Kevin

    The use of the word “worrying” implies that you fear for the future when you should be condemning the here and now.