Discussion of other UK political parties
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#273452
Perhaps Emmett would like to explain away the utter fucking dishonesty of the blatant UKIP lies in Rotherham and elsewhere - where all these sad people who are being victimised for being stupid, sorry voting UKIP are suddenly and conveniently emerging?

On the Rotherham story :
1) You know that the local council can't comment directly because of child protection issues - yet you are quite happy to use these children for some grubby political stunt.
2)You can say whatever you want and you know the Social Services department can't answer you. Dishonest, sleazy and absolutely vile.
3) You know that cases like this never centre on a single issue, and you have carefully erased all the other issues to do with this couple. You have lied.
4)There is no evidence, other than UKIP's nicotine and beer-stained notes on the back of a bar bill that any of this ever happened. You have been told from all sides that membership of UKIP (vile though it is) is not a bar to fostering for money.
5) The timing is just a little suspect, is it not.
6) If the council were to have used UKIP membership as a negative factor in assessing this couple - who are after all doing this for money, not for love as you suggest - they would have been correct. You can't have it both ways, like you always want to. If we listen to your borderline-racist ramblings about immigration and the 'threat of multiculturalism' then we don't want to put vulnerable kids with you, because you aren't actually tolerant or even nice people.

I would shudder, protest and do something about it if I ever found a UKIP 'member' (what an appropriate word) in a position to have influence over my grandchildren. One of whom is mixed race, so an inferior creature to you with a culture that can be dismissed.

I want them to grow up as better people than you.

Finally - you may like to read this, but as it was written by a professional I suspect that you won't. Perhaps you could show it to the Human Nicotine Stain when he gets in from the pub:

http://www.basw.co.uk/news/article/?id=250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The British Association of Social Workers wrote: BASW statement on Rotherham council's removal of three children from a foster couple:

The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) would not seek to defend this decision based on the limited amount of evidence available, as membership of UKIP should not of itself be a sufficient reason to remove a child or children from a foster placement. We would nonetheless caution against kneejerk condemnation, as so often in such cases the headlines and the realities are some distance apart.

The issue of a child's ethnic heritage is an important consideration in any decisions made about fostering, as this factor can make a difference to the chances of securing a successful placement and supporting children in often traumatic circumstances. In turn, a willingness on the part of foster parents to respect the culture and background of a child is extremely important, which is why UKIP's reported position on multiculturalism appears to have been a cause for concern in this case.

However, membership of UKIP should not be considered, as an isolated factor, sufficient reason to dismiss the suitability of a parent or parents, which is why, given the limited information available, this decision is difficult to fully understand.
 
By oboogie
Membership Days Posts
#273459
Well said Malcolm.
By Big Rob
#273474
I would rule a UKIP or a BNP foster parent for my kid.

Or a theist one to boot....


Should I pop my cork...
 
By Emmett Jenner
Membership Days
#273489
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Perhaps Emmett would like to explain away the utter fucking dishonesty of the blatant UKIP lies in Rotherham and elsewhere - where all these sad people who are being victimised for being stupid, sorry voting UKIP are suddenly and conveniently emerging?

On the Rotherham story :
1) You know that the local council can't comment directly because of child protection issues - yet you are quite happy to use these children for some grubby political stunt.
2)You can say whatever you want and you know the Social Services department can't answer you. Dishonest, sleazy and absolutely vile.
3) You know that cases like this never centre on a single issue, and you have carefully erased all the other issues to do with this couple. You have lied.
4)There is no evidence, other than UKIP's nicotine and beer-stained notes on the back of a bar bill that any of this ever happened. You have been told from all sides that membership of UKIP (vile though it is) is not a bar to fostering for money.
5) The timing is just a little suspect, is it not.
6) If the council were to have used UKIP membership as a negative factor in assessing this couple - who are after all doing this for money, not for love as you suggest - they would have been correct. You can't have it both ways, like you always want to. If we listen to your borderline-racist ramblings about immigration and the 'threat of multiculturalism' then we don't want to put vulnerable kids with you, because you aren't actually tolerant or even nice people.

I would shudder, protest and do something about it if I ever found a UKIP 'member' (what an appropriate word) in a position to have influence over my grandchildren. One of whom is mixed race, so an inferior creature to you with a culture that can be dismissed.

I want them to grow up as better people than you.

Finally - you may like to read this, but as it was written by a professional I suspect that you won't. Perhaps you could show it to the Human Nicotine Stain when he gets in from the pub:

http://www.basw.co.uk/news/article/?id=250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The British Association of Social Workers wrote: BASW statement on Rotherham council's removal of three children from a foster couple:

The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) would not seek to defend this decision based on the limited amount of evidence available, as membership of UKIP should not of itself be a sufficient reason to remove a child or children from a foster placement. We would nonetheless caution against kneejerk condemnation, as so often in such cases the headlines and the realities are some distance apart.

The issue of a child's ethnic heritage is an important consideration in any decisions made about fostering, as this factor can make a difference to the chances of securing a successful placement and supporting children in often traumatic circumstances. In turn, a willingness on the part of foster parents to respect the culture and background of a child is extremely important, which is why UKIP's reported position on multiculturalism appears to have been a cause for concern in this case.

However, membership of UKIP should not be considered, as an isolated factor, sufficient reason to dismiss the suitability of a parent or parents, which is why, given the limited information available, this decision is difficult to fully understand.
but all this is based on a false premise malco. What would a party which is not the Labour party have to do to show you how we actually feel? We are established in our constitution as a non-racist, non-sectarian libertarian organisation with an active ban on membership for current and former members of the BNP, EDL and a number of other similar organisations. Immigration and race are not the same. UKIP are pro-Europe but anti-EU. I know you know all of this already though.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#273499
No, you are borderline racists, you just package it in weasel words. That's what all the monocultural rubbish means. You personally may be in denial, but that's how it is. You are also extremely dishonest.
By smod
Membership Days Posts
#273503
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Perhaps Emmett would like to explain away the utter fucking dishonesty of the blatant UKIP lies in Rotherham and elsewhere - where all these sad people who are being victimised for being stupid, sorry voting UKIP are suddenly and conveniently emerging?

On the Rotherham story :
1) You know that the local council can't comment directly because of child protection issues - yet you are quite happy to use these children for some grubby political stunt.
2)You can say whatever you want and you know the Social Services department can't answer you. Dishonest, sleazy and absolutely vile.
3) You know that cases like this never centre on a single issue, and you have carefully erased all the other issues to do with this couple. You have lied.
4)There is no evidence, other than UKIP's nicotine and beer-stained notes on the back of a bar bill that any of this ever happened. You have been told from all sides that membership of UKIP (vile though it is) is not a bar to fostering for money.
5) The timing is just a little suspect, is it not.
6) If the council were to have used UKIP membership as a negative factor in assessing this couple - who are after all doing this for money, not for love as you suggest - they would have been correct. You can't have it both ways, like you always want to. If we listen to your borderline-racist ramblings about immigration and the 'threat of multiculturalism' then we don't want to put vulnerable kids with you, because you aren't actually tolerant or even nice people.

I would shudder, protest and do something about it if I ever found a UKIP 'member' (what an appropriate word) in a position to have influence over my grandchildren. One of whom is mixed race, so an inferior creature to you with a culture that can be dismissed.

I want them to grow up as better people than you.

Finally - you may like to read this, but as it was written by a professional I suspect that you won't. Perhaps you could show it to the Human Nicotine Stain when he gets in from the pub:

http://www.basw.co.uk/news/article/?id=250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The British Association of Social Workers wrote: BASW statement on Rotherham council's removal of three children from a foster couple:

The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) would not seek to defend this decision based on the limited amount of evidence available, as membership of UKIP should not of itself be a sufficient reason to remove a child or children from a foster placement. We would nonetheless caution against kneejerk condemnation, as so often in such cases the headlines and the realities are some distance apart.

The issue of a child's ethnic heritage is an important consideration in any decisions made about fostering, as this factor can make a difference to the chances of securing a successful placement and supporting children in often traumatic circumstances. In turn, a willingness on the part of foster parents to respect the culture and background of a child is extremely important, which is why UKIP's reported position on multiculturalism appears to have been a cause for concern in this case.

However, membership of UKIP should not be considered, as an isolated factor, sufficient reason to dismiss the suitability of a parent or parents, which is why, given the limited information available, this decision is difficult to fully understand.
Brilliantly put Malcolm.
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#273513
Abernathy wrote:
there were no second thoughts when it came to picking the candidate for Croydon North
Why on earth would there be any second thoughts?

What does Winston think about his party's immigration policy, specfically that it wants to "end the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government"?
Can't help noticing that you didn't reply to the point above, Emmett. You said that "there were no second thoughts" when selecting Winston - a black man (we notice, as you've helpfully given us a picture of him) - as a UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election. Did you think that there might have been "second thoughts"? If not, why mention it?

As Malcolm correctly points out, UKIP are indeed borderline racists. I'd suggest that the above simply reinforces that assertion.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#273544
Know the phrase "Loose Lips Sink Friendships" or the more sinister one, "Loose Talk Costs Lives"? Both of them emphasise the point that you should always be careful of what you say or write, not out of any totalitarian authority, but that there can be consequences to what you say or write, hence it may come back to haunt you.

If you're a member of a political which espouses to "end multiculturalism" (which I've said before is a fallacy in the context of the UK, but that's for another time) and you don't agree with that principle, you have a few options. One is to unilaterally leave that party; pretty draconian especially if you don't take the next option, namely seek to change such a party policy e.g. through motions at party conferences. You might fail to do this but still decide that most of the party platform fits your view and so remain, therefore engage in internal party democracy. The next one is to disassociate yourself with that view which can be done, but you have to be prepared to speak up in some way to do so unless you are otherwise intimidated - and that intimidation can only come though other party members, not those outside of it. Therefore even if we take everything that has been in the media domain since Saturday, by being a part of a political party that has such a policy platform and assuming no effort has been made by the couple in question to disassociate themselves from it, then it can be easily established as tactile agreement to that policy. What some would say "guilt by association".

This then extends to the issue of "freedom of speech" where as an extension to the above, it is claimed that any such discussion on a matter such as above, or of immigration is "shouted down" over accusations of racism. The irony is that making such a statement uses the same logic you accuse your opponents of conducting. In my experience of such points and arguments made on the subject, debate tends to be actually reasonably healthy on such matters when it is done calmly. What the likes of those who claim to have their view on immigration or multiculturalism being "suppressed" is to actually suppress arguments against their POV. Accused then from someone of being racist? Then either try and point out why it is or you are not racist or just live up to it (I'm racist? So What!) What can't be done if you have a belief in freedom of speech in the public domain is not allow your view or opinion not to be challenged. That includes being assigned labels you might not be comfortable with. Many on the left of centre often get weasel words thrown at them (normally socialist, communist etc. for even suggesting something that lies to the left of Rand) from rightist commentators, but start on being the Most Oppressed People on Earth when its thrown back at them. Maybe a hint of the truth is uncomfortable to some people. Including Fargle.

In any case, it's obvious that even Stevie Wonder can see there's more to this than meets the eye. Too much of this smells like a story that cannot be properly verified due to issues of confidentiality, the timing of the release of the story on a Saturday morning meaning that the local body involved in the operation won't have time to get an immediate rebuttal in (allowing UKIP to milk it for 48 hours), the confusion in among the general public over the difference between fostering and adoption, and the Orwellian style reporting of a governmental body "taking your kids away because of who you support!!!!!11!!!One!!" I'd like to think this would backfire on UKIP, but I doubt this.
 
By Emmett Jenner
Membership Days
#273548
Abernathy wrote:
Abernathy wrote:
there were no second thoughts when it came to picking the candidate for Croydon North
Why on earth would there be any second thoughts?

What does Winston think about his party's immigration policy, specfically that it wants to "end the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government"?
Can't help noticing that you didn't reply to the point above, Emmett. You said that "there were no second thoughts" when selecting Winston - a black man (we notice, as you've helpfully given us a picture of him) - as a UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election. Did you think that there might have been "second thoughts"? If not, why mention it?
Not intentionally. It just takes a long time to reply to everything when there are 10 of you and 1 of me. We choose a candidate for every parliamentary by-election. In this case, with his support, 3 years of commitment to the party, experience as a candidate, being from the area and the support he has there meant he was the first person we wanted and he won the selection easily with the substantial majority of the votes going his way. I'm pleased that you're interested but really that could have been easily summarised with a short sentence.
Abernathy wrote:As Malcolm correctly points out, UKIP are indeed borderline racists. I'd suggest that the above simply reinforces that assertion.
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:No, you are borderline racists, you just package it in weasel words. That's what all the monocultural rubbish means. You personally may be in denial, but that's how it is. You are also extremely dishonest.
You're an amusing man malco. Why does every opponent of the Labour party have to have a label? Is that a form of 'tribalism' - i.e. divide up society into classes, section off the 'tory toffs' / all the others are racist? 'Them and us' - how is that different to racism itself? Categorising people and then encouraging a band of brothers to exhibit hatred for 'those who aren't like us' - I thought you were supposed to be smart? It's clear too many years hanging about with children has had an effect on your ability to reason.
 
By lord_kobel
Membership Days Posts
#273550
Emmett Jenner wrote:how is that different to racism itself?
You choose to be a stupid fucker.

Want to answer any of the questions that were put to you?
 
By crabcakes_windermere
Membership Days Posts
#273573
To be fair to Emmett, I don't think he's racist, nor do I think all members/supporters of UKIP are racist.

However, I do think they might be turning a blind eye to things. UKIP policies are worded in such a way that they are attractive to racists. That doesn't make the policies themsleves racist - the people who wrote them are clever enough to avoid being too blatant. But they can still be interpreted in the way that was most likely intended to attract a certain type of voter. Specifically, the casual "I don't want to be seen as anything other than a pillar of the community, but I just don't really like foreign people much" racist that would never dream of voting BNP because they're a bunch of violent, lower class thugs, but who also sees no harm in gollywogs, thinks all black people on TV are there to fill a quota and doesn't understand why "Paki" is offensive. They probably don't mind Graham Norton or Lily Savage but don't like gay people either. The sort that are smart enough to read between the lines of a Littlejohn article to understand what he's getting at when he's implying immigrants are the root of all evil, but not smart enough (or not willing to see past their own prejudices) to realise that they're still part of the problem even if they're not out actively punching black people in the street or screaming abuse outside mosques. They willingly join the dots and put 2 and 2 together to make 5, and their indifference to and acts of casual forms of intolerance allows more extreme behaviour to continue and normalises less extreme behaviour making it all the harder to stamp it out.

The problem is, Emmett, I suspect the top brass in UKIP know that the policies they have and the wordings of those policies have precisely the effect of attracting such people - folk who want a harder line than the mainstream tories dare offer without going full on. You can turn a blind eye to it too if you like and decry it all as people trying to label your party with a badge it doesn't deserve, but I'm afraid it won't go away because it's really there and fairly obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in denying it.

The people you've thrown your lot in with will at some level of hierarchy be fully aware they appeal to and attract people with intolerant views, and they have no issue with that. You'll have to decide whether you do.
By smod
Membership Days Posts
#273597
Defend this bigotry Emmett, I dare you.
UKIP'S candidate for the Croydon North by-election says gay people should not be allowed to adopt.

Winston McKenzie said placing children with gay or lesbian couples was "unhealthy" after retweeting an article written by a National Front supporter who claimed there was "no such thing as homophobia".
http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Exc ... =934585148" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
By oboogie
Membership Days Posts
#273604
Citing neo-Nazi sources...nothing right-wing or racist about that is there Emmett?
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#273646
Emmett Jenner wrote:with his support, 3 years of commitment to the party, experience as a candidate, being from the area and the support he has there meant he was the first person we wanted and he won the selection easily with the substantial majority of the votes going his way. I'm pleased that you're interested but really that could have been easily summarised with a short sentence.
I'm not the slightest bit interested in UKIP's candidate selection procedures. What I was interested in was your un-prompted suggestion that there may have been "second thoughts" about Mr McKenzie's selection, and what could possibly have led you to feel the need to assure us that this was not the case. To me, it suggests that you are aware of the existence of members of Croydon's UKIP selectorate to whom Mr McKenzie's selection as a by-election candidate was not acceptable due to his race - in short, racist members of your party. You may characterise this as a Freudian slip, but I note that you have side-stepped the issue again. Which leaves me to draw my own conclusions about UKIP and racism.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#273649
What are your thoughts on Mr McKenzie's strident outbursts against gay marriage, given that the Labour candidate is gay? Genuine or opportunist?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 21
The Sun

As a step down from regular cigarettes, they are h[…]

Mail Online and Adblockers

I see Mail Online is now blocking anyone with an A[…]

Winterval Bingo

Dragonist! :P Coming over here, burning our […]

Boris Johnson

The right wing media were quick enough to apportio[…]