Quote:

---

A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.

Rotherham Borough Council said the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration.

It said it had to consider the "needs of the children longer term".

The unnamed couple told the Daily Telegraph social workers had accused them of belonging to a "racist party". UKIP said it was an appalling decision.

Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC that her decision was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy, which she said calls for the end of the "active promotion of multiculturalism".

UKIP's immigration policy states the party wants an "end [to] the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", and urges Britain to leave the European Union (EU).

The Labour Party has called for an investigation into the Labour-run council's decision, after claims from UKIP it could have been politically motivated.

'Dumbfounded'

The couple, who have been approved foster parents for seven years, were eight weeks into the placement when they were approached by social workers about their membership of the party.

The wife told the Daily Telegraph: "I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has UKIP got to do with having the children removed?'


"Then one of them said, 'Well, UKIP have got racist policies.' The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said UKIP does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries."

The paper says the woman denied she was racist but the children were taken away by the end of the week.

She 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 couple said they had been "stigmatised and slandered".

Ms Thacker said she did not regret the decision, which was reached after "a lot of soul searching".

"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 added during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today: "I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Would anyone here feel comfortable denying Tea Party Republicans or Socialist Party USA members the right to foster children? If so, why?

---

Quote:

---

Would anyone here feel comfortable denying Tea Party Republicans or Socialist Party USA members the right to foster children?

---

Quote:

---

I honestly think many here would applaud denying TEA party parents the right to foster children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I honestly think many here would applaud denying TEA party parents the right to foster children.

---

That's a very hysterical statement.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I honestly think many here would applaud denying TEA party parents the right to foster children.

---

That's a very hysterical statement.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

it's a common theme, where folks get riled up and hating another person, or group, based on lies and rumors, and before long, dislike turns to outward animosity, towards violence and denial of rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Ah yes, like his call for forced sterilisation of welfare mothers.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

I was talking about ONE specific case

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

I was talking about ONE specific case

---

Hello,

This is the level of self-deception afoot. Denial based on the grammatical detail of plurality rather than substantive content.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

I was talking about ONE specific case

---

Hello,

This is the level of self-deception afoot. Denial based on the grammatical detail of plurality rather than substantive content.

---

What a bunch of horseshit. You're just pissed that you can't lay claim that I was calling for WELFARE MOTHERS to be sterilized, and I was commenting on one extreme, specific situation.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Hey Mr Compassionate, back up for a second.

Before you wander off into the great, wide open land of tangents, do you think for a second that , MAYBE, I might be more concerned about how MY views are, once again, being distorted and things I never said are being attributed to what and how I think ?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

What I find repugnant is the automatic stance by you in thinking I was talking FORCED sterilization as an option,only, and not even considering I MIGHT have suggested it be a choice, for the mother. And at no cost to her, either.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

We think nothing of free abortions for the poor, yet why is it so horrific to suggest free sterilizations, to those in extreme, dire situations instead ?

What, too radical for you ?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Quote:

---

You can't have claim to believe in freedom and want to dictate to people when and if they can have children.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, I can, when the choices of having kids becomes a burden on society, and endangers the health and well being of her other kids.

---

Quote:

---

How do you reconcile your support of "freedom" and also advocate forced sterilization?

---

Quote:

---

In this case, how do you NOT stop this lady from having more kids ?

---

Quote:

---

Far from merely wanting to put welfare mothers in shackles, and dragging them off to clinics, in standard, routine fashion, now isn't it ?

---

Quote:

---

You could say, like Obama, my position 'evolved', to offer up a more flexible solution, than the one i posed, in the heat of exchanges, back some months ago.

---

Quote:

---

I still hold to my original view, that in such drastic, rare instances, extraordinary measures must be taken.

---

Quote:

---

You seem like you'd rather squabble on semantics, day in and day out, instead of facing the problem, and actually offering up a viable solution.

---

Quote:

---

Because I never said that. But thanks for taking me completely out of context, and ignoring the fact that I was talking about ONE specific case

---

Quote:

---

I MIGHT have suggested it be a choice, for the mother.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

What I find repugnant is the automatic stance by you in thinking I was talking FORCED sterilization as an option,only, and not even considering I MIGHT have suggested it be a choice, for the mother. And at no cost to her, either.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

We think nothing of free abortions for the poor, yet why is it so horrific to suggest free sterilizations, to those in extreme, dire situations instead ?

What, too radical for you ?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=53359&mid=9
15405

Quoth Nick:

Quote:

---

You can't have claim to believe in freedom and want to dictate to people when and if they can have children.

---

Quoth Raptor:

Quote:

---

Yeah, I can, when the choices of having kids becomes a burden on society, and endangers the health and well being of her other kids.

---

Quoth Signy:

Quote:

---

How do you reconcile your support of "freedom" and also advocate forced sterilization?

---

Quoth Raptor:

Quote:

---

In this case, how do you NOT stop this lady from having more kids ?

---

Hello,

I wonder where people get the crazy idea you advocate forced sterilization on anybody. We must have had a shared delusion. Thank goodness you clarified (redefined when it became inconvenient) your position.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

If you call for sterilisation of one welfare mother, you're calling for the sterilisation of all welfare mothers who are in a similar position. Hence 'calling for the sterilisation of welfare mothers (plural)'.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I MIGHT have suggested it be a choice, for the mother.

---

Lies! I think the person you lie to first is yourself - and then by the time you repeat it to others you already sincerely BELIEVE it.

---

Quote:

---

No I'm not. Not ALL welfare mothers,

---

Quote:

---

Oh good grief, how gorram childish can you get ? I'm suggesting ways of dealing w/ the problem

---

Quote:

---

irrelevant matters such as what I said and what I thought I said.

---

Quote:

---

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink. ”

---

Quote:

---

“ The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

---