Lummel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 ok :laugh:Rightly or wrongly it is standard practise to put children with foster parents on a temporary basis until more suitable foster parents can be found, particularly if there is a limited availability of foster parents with a matching cultural background. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that governments and the courts have stressed repeatedly that putting children in families is a better option than using local authority care homes and related to this there has been move to closing care homes or only providing facilities out of the borough in cheaper localities - a factor in the Rotherham child abuse case was the town was stuffed with care homes operated by other local authorities because the location was cheaper to operate in (a similar thing is starting to happen now in social housing). This may or may not be connected with the fact that foster care is also cheaper than providing local authority care homes, particularly once you get to the stage were you can close the homes and flog off the land to house builders.So the system isn't intended to be nice to foster parents - the child and the child's interests are meant to be central. The foster parents would have eventually have had the children removed in any case once a better match had been identified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWHamel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 ok :laugh:Rightly or wrongly it is standard practise to put children with foster parents on a temporary basis until more suitable foster parents can be found, particularly if there is a limited availability of foster parents with a matching cultural background.There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that governments and the courts have stressed repeatedly that putting children in families is a better option than using local authority care homes and related to this there has been move to closing care homes or only providing facilities out of the borough in cheaper localities - a factor in the Rotherham child abuse case was the town was stuffed with care homes operated by other local authorities because the location was cheaper to operate in (a similar thing is starting to happen now in social housing). This may or may not be connected with the fact that foster care is also cheaper than providing local authority care homes, particularly once you get to the stage were you can close the homes and flog off the land to house builders.So the system isn't intended to be nice to foster parents - the child and the child's interests are meant to be central. The foster parents would have eventually have had the children removed in any case once a better match had been identified.So, I heard that the children were removed from the foster home and put into an orphanage? True or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Is it true that you heard that or is it true they were put in a care home? I don't know in either case, but I'll take your word on trust that it is true that is what you heard ;)The children could have gone to a care home or to another temporary foster home. I haven't heard anything.If what the Telegraph was reporting was correct and there was a tip off given against the foster parents then clearly something dodgy is going on anyway. Foster parents are meant to be thoroughly vetted so it's hard to imagine they were unsuitable, even if, arguably, they weren't ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWHamel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I heard it on a radio/podcast here in the U.S., but I can't find any verification. It doesn't mean it's true, but it does seem to be pertinent to the story. I read that they were with the parents for 8 weeks, and the children were calling them Mum and Dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWHamel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So is it the position of the Council, that if you are not Anglo Saxon (or even Norman), you belong in an orphanage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosesskrift Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So is it the position of the Council, that if you are not Anglo Saxon (or even Norman), you belong in an orphanage?That's a strange conclusion to reach based on the available information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWHamel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 That's a strange conclusion to reach based on the available information.I'm not sure. I read these articles, and the concern is all about the ethnicity of the Foster Parents, and their political leanings, and there doesn't seem to be any concern about the three children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So is it the position of the Council, that if you are not Anglo Saxon (or even Norman), you belong in an orphanage?eh?The position as far as I understand it is that the children were placed with foster parents the council received a tip-off that the foster parents were grossly unsuitable so the the children were removed. Since the children were of a different cultural background they probably would have been removed at some point anyway and placed with a family deemed to be a better match. Certainly that's standard practise, rightly or wrongly.The technical position of the council will be that the interests of the child are paramount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWHamel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 The technical position of the council will be that the interests of the child are paramount.I am sure that is what the Social Services people want you to believe, but where are the children now, what is their condition, and what do they think about this?OK, I don't really expect you answer this, and I expect I will never find out, so it's rhetorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I'm not sure. I read these articles, and the concern is all about the ethnicity of the Foster Parents, and their political leanings, and there doesn't seem to be any concern about the three children.ok, the legal assumption in the UK is the interests of the child are best served by being kept in their biological families or with biological family members in the first instance or by being placed with foster parents if that is impossible because of risk to the children but that the parents should be of a similar cultural background to the children.That all sounds very nice but in practise it can mean that children are moved around a lot particularly if it is difficult to match them with suitable foster parents. There's long been a view that the interests of children would be better served by stability. It is also fairly normal for foster parents to be looking after children for very short placements because local authority care homes are being closed as provision is largely outsourced to foster parents.The report in the Telegraph said the children were moved after a tip-off. Presumably the tip-off was more than the foster parents just being members of UKIP. On the other hand the local authority had already been taken to task apparently in the courts for not putting enough effort into taking the background of children in care into account plus there was the recent big child grooming scandal so it could be that the Council was simply unusually sensitive over the case :dunno: . All the known facts of the case have come from the foster parents. Obviously they are aggrieved, and that's fair enough, but also they will only know part of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I am sure that is what the Social Services people want you to believe, but where are the children now, what is their condition, and what do they think about this?OK, I don't really expect you answer this, and I expect I will never find out, so it's rhetorical.Well like I say the legal position is that the interests of the child are paramount and that those are best served with being with people of the same background. But for sure although that is the legal position upheld through the courts it's subjective. Clearly on practical grounds that's going to get impossibly complex when you are dealing with a mongrel lot like us British with more and more mixed race, religiously mixed, ethnically diverse households. It would be a perfectly reasonable point of view to say that a safe, stable, loving home should be the priority and that cultural or ethnic considerations should come after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Anarch Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Inspector Frost, you'd never guess from the fantastic TV series that in the books he was a snarky old pervert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosesskrift Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I am sure that is what the Social Services people want you to believe, but where are the children now, what is their condition, and what do they think about this?OK, I don't really expect you answer this, and I expect I will never find out, so it's rhetorical.Because Social Services are secretly filled with people who wish for nothing more than to harm children in order to score cheap political points?You seem to have a lot of pre-conceived notions regarding this case. I typically find it better to hold off on judgements when I have no information on which to base said judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Holy shit holy shit holy shit holy shit holy shit holy shit.You fucking mother fuckas just stole the head of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, and named him head of the Bank of England.You bastards. :frown5: http://topics.bloomberg.com/mark-carney/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Wow.How the hell did Osborne manage that? Talk was that Carney wasn't interested, Tucker was meant to be the shoe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Mark Carney was the secret hope of a lot of Liberal party supporters. People were hoping when his term was up he'd run under the Liberal banner. He'd make a great Minister of Finance.It will be very interesting to see what he does in England. I'll bet he'll shake the tree pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm pretty sure that in times of crisis the Dominions are obligated to provide us with useful resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 ... and keep Brady a long, long way away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 ...It will be very interesting to see what he does in England. I'll bet he'll shake the tree pretty good.depends on what he is being brought in to do. He only got a five year term rather than eight which means potentially he's only got two and half years, well two years once King steps down next year before the next government comes in with different ideas.On the plus side he's not a bank of England insider and won't be necessarily influenced by its established habits and approaches, but on the downside he's not a bank of England insider and will loose time getting to grips with it as an institution.Still he should get a knighthood out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Here is the press conference in Ottawa. Skip the first 4 minutes of blather from the business press and go straight to the press conference at minute 4.00. There is a lot of BS from the Minister of Finance, you can skip him if you want too. Go to minute 8.00 to hear from Carney. http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip813925 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.