web analytics

spin; or bull?

By Mike Cunningham On November 26th, 2012

In amongst the many words written and spoken regarding the removal of three children from a foster couple due to their membership of a ‘Racist Political Party’ namely UKIP, not many have focussed on the one term which creates, in my mind at least, a strange sense of foreboding.

The acid-minded Director of Childrens Services was, after all, acting upon her own deeply-held conviction that all people who hold any, repeat ‘any’ political beliefs which run contrary to her own are not worthy of the trust placed in them to look after vulnerable children. We must accept that this strange-minded harridan was acting in accord with her own ‘rules and regulations’ when she authorised the removal of those three children, one a very small baby, from this foster couple who had had the sheer audacity to take up and hold to a belief which was contrary to the ‘authorised and sanitised’ version, as laid down by the Labour Party, along with Common Purpose, naturally.

But the really disturbing fact which has yet to emerge fully from the dung-heap which is Rotherham Council, and their Social Services Department, is that the Childrens Services were ‘tipped off’ by an anonymous source. The questions which are raised by these few words should raise more eyebrows that do the rest of the ‘facts’ of this sordid tale. How did the UKIP membership of this couple become known? How was it verified? Could it, (the membership) have been cross-checked by an independent source? Are there members of UKIP in Rotherham who also report to a Labour Party Star Chamber?

Tipped off? The East German STASI would be proud to welcome this bunch as members, because they think and believe just as that disgusting organisation did.

7 Responses to “spin; or bull?”

  1. Mike, just a thought…if it were a gay foster couple would the removal have garnered as many atw posts as this UKIP couple?

  2. As it is pefectly lawful for a homosexual couple to foster or adopt, one would presume that the same uproar would ensue if the reasons for the removal were the politics of the foster couple.

  3. One would presume, but I doubt it would have seen any ink in this space.

    We seem to be quite selective in our cause de jour conservative outrage.

  4. Mile – I think Daphne’s point is a fair one, the angst on this case in some circles as exhibited on ATW seems driven by the politics of the couple. In other words, some are coming to their defense merely because they sympathize with the couple politically, and not because they feel politics should not be a consideration.

  5. That’s it exactly, Mahons.

  6. Well folks, especially ones who are obsessed with implicitly accusing others of bigotry and homophobia, let us not forget that Adolph Hitler was not only democratically elected into power, he also had a distinct aversion to homosexuals, and by getting rid of democracy and free speech, he was then able to do exactly what he wanted to do. Once the checks and balances have gone, anything is up for grabs.

    So, if you think that the underlying points of the post are not worthy of being taken seriously, and are a great opportunity for some more cheap sniping attacks to score points off other people, don’t be surprised if that tendency to cheapen or ignore some fundamentally important issues comes back and bites you.

  7. The East German STASI … mere amateurs compared to ‘Common purpose’.

    http://dollarvigilante.com/storage/Stasi2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1333675419294