But it really shocked me that the UKIP members weren't allowed to foster those kids

But it really shocked me that the UKIP members weren't allowed to foster those kids

 

Think the kids were Hungarian Orphans in favour of the Euro.

 

HTH.

There is a bit more information here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed

 

Seems that there were a number of reasons that the children were removed - for a start it was only ever a short term emergency placement, there seems to be some danger that the birth parents could find out where they were, and the council had lost a previous case where the children were not placed in an enviroment were thier "home" langauge was spoke (strange I know, but Social Services have to abide by the court's judgement).

 

The thing is, there was a by-election in Rotheram, so it suited UKIP to say that the only reason was memebership of thier party, as they were after a few more votes....

There is a bit more information here: http://www.guardian....hildren-removed

 

Seems that there were a number of reasons that the children were removed - for a start it was only ever a short term emergency placement, there seems to be some danger that the birth parents could find out where they were, and the council had lost a previous case where the children were not placed in an enviroment were thier "home" langauge was spoke (strange I know, but Social Services have to abide by the court's judgement).

 

The thing is, there was a by-election in Rotheram, so it suited UKIP to say that the only reason was memebership of thier party, as they were after a few more votes....

 

 

Sources close to The Guardian?

There is a bit more information here: http://www.guardian....hildren-removed

 

Seems that there were a number of reasons that the children were removed - for a start it was only ever a short term emergency placement, there seems to be some danger that the birth parents could find out where they were, and the council had lost a previous case where the children were not placed in an enviroment were thier "home" langauge was spoke (strange I know, but Social Services have to abide by the court's judgement).

 

The thing is, there was a by-election in Rotheram, so it suited UKIP to say that the only reason was memebership of thier party, as they were after a few more votes....

 

Thats bollocks!

 

Quote: "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".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

Yes, of course, UKIP are racist. If they hadn't been taken away those totally unsuitable parents would have had the kids hating themselves and punching and torturing themselves every day for being foreigners.

A vote for UKIP is just a fucking waste, they are a nothing party with no policies.

vote bnp

UAF

A vote for UKIP is just a fucking waste, they are a nothing party with no policies.

 

Keep on doing the same thing and..........................you will keep on getting the same result

UAF

 

ivf

 

 

Keep on doing the same thing and..........................you will keep on getting the same result

 

True, but you know as well as I do, that UKIP are not really any different to any of the major parties....they're all in it for themselves, and don't give a fuck about the common man. If you read the UKIP manifesto, it's an absolute joke and totally unworkable, but when you know you won't ever get voted in, you can make any promises you like.

 

If UKIP did manage to run the country, we would be bankrupt as a nation within 12 months

A vote for UKIP is just a fucking waste, they are a nothing party with no policies.

 

I think you'll find that by the 2015 election they will have more credible economic policies than most of the established parties.

 

 

I think you'll find that by the 2015 election they will have more credible economic policies than most of the established parties.

 

And they'll still have less than 10 seats in parliament. They are one of those parties that people wax lyrical about, but then dose not to vote for. They're not really a lot different than the "Monster Raving Loony Party" basically a bunch of blokes with not policies who just waste their £500 deposit.

 

I've looked at their manifestos in the past, and it's totally unworkable IMO, bit as I said earlier, they can promise what they want, as they know they won't have to deliver

A couple of weeks ago the WWays homosexual cabal were defending the right of bummers to adopt. If their argument was based just on principle then they would be all over this thread, wouldn't they?

And they'll still have less than 10 seats in parliament. They are one of those parties that people wax lyrical about, but then dose not to vote for. They're not really a lot different than the "Monster Raving Loony Party" basically a bunch of blokes with not policies who just waste their £500 deposit.

 

I've looked at their manifestos in the past, and it's totally unworkable IMO, bit as I said earlier, they can promise what they want, as they know they won't have to deliver

 

... just as the Liberals did last time - only to find themselves held to account.

 

If you look back as David Sutch's pledges when leading the Monster Raving Loony Party, you'll find a lot which have since become law . When he first stood his major point was the reduce the voting age from 21 to 18. Of course everyone knew that would never happen...

And his last one before topping himself was passports for pets - how ridiculous! But guess what....

A couple of weeks ago the WWays homosexual cabal were defending the right of bummers to adopt. If their argument was based just on principle then they would be all over this thread, wouldn't they?

Why? What's UKIP got to do with "gay adoption"

True, but you know as well as I do, that UKIP are not really any different to any of the major parties....they're all in it for themselves, and don't give a fuck about the common man. If you read the UKIP manifesto, it's an absolute joke and totally unworkable, but when you know you won't ever get voted in, you can make any promises you like.

 

If UKIP did manage to run the country, we would be bankrupt as a nation within 12 months

 

Ok I will bite. Lets just take Europe. One of the biggest untruths accepted by most is that because most of our exports go to countries within the EU it would be a disaster were we to pull out. That is absolute bullshit. People from those countries buy from us not because we are in the EU but because companies in the UK have something that they want at the right price and the correct quality.

 

Also we import far more from the EU than we export.

 

We are the second biggest contributors to the EU in monitory terms. Now that cannot be right. The reason we are still part of this ruinous wasteful club is that politicians from the 3 main parties just love the gravy train.

 

We would not be bankrupt. What we would have is MP's actually carrying out the wishes of the whole population rather than a minority with vested interests.

Edited December 2, 201213 yr by bgoefc

 

Why? What's UKIP got to do with "gay adoption"

I'm not seeing a link either.

... just as the Liberals did last time - only to find themselves held to account.

 

If you look back as David Sutch's pledges when leading the Monster Raving Loony Party, you'll find a lot which have since become law . When he first stood his major point was the reduce the voting age from 21 to 18. Of course everyone knew that would never happen...

And his last one before topping himself was passports for pets - how ridiculous! But guess what....

 

just recalled some more of his policy pledges:

 

Comprehensive education for all (It'll never happen), and

All day drinking (beyond ludicrous... at the time).

 

We would not be bankrupt. What we would have is MP's actually carrying out the wishes of the whole population rather than a minority with vested interests.

 

I think the fact that want abolish the 40% and 50% tax bands and merge NI contributions into the basic tax rate would cause issues, not to mention abolishing employers NI contributions. It just leaves too big a tax hole to fill I reckon, although I'm no expert, so maybe it would work

I'm not seeing a link either.

 

If you use a broad enough brush I'm sure sommat would link them.

 

 

If you use a broad enough brush I'm sure sommat would link them.

In a degrees of separation kind of a way?

Fair enough.

I think the fact that want abolish the 40% and 50% tax bands and merge NI contributions into the basic tax rate would cause issues, not to mention abolishing employers NI contributions. It just leaves too big a tax hole to fill I reckon, although I'm no expert, so maybe it would work

 

They advocate a flat tax, so you've described all the tax lowering bits, ignored the tax raising bits and successfully mischaracterised/misunderstood what they propose to make it seem revenue negative.

Why? What's UKIP got to do with "gay adoption"

 

Nothing.

 

The point was that you were quick to defend one minority's right to adpot but not another's.