They're talking about a 5 year freeze on [iall[/i immigration. Have a word with any multinational business of your choice and see what they reckon to that crackpot policy. And maybe we have services 'at breaking point' due to massive swingeing cuts rather than huge numbers of immigrants?

Controlled immigration is the way forward. A total freeze is crackpottery of the highest order.


You might want to do some research. We are in technical breach of a treaty we voluntarily signed up to in the wake of the second world war. Even then, it's only a blanket ban on all prisoners voting regardless of individual circumstances that's been ruled illegal. And finally, the will of parliament is still sovereign and cannot be overruled. All Cameron has to do is put a genuine bill to a genuine vote. Unfortunately his somewhat intemperate comments might torpedo that one.


We're not talking about idealism. We're talking about crackpottery. And no serious commentators ruled out a black president.

It's a constant source of amusement and some amazement that those of a certain right-wing (or just plain stupid) persuasion can continually conflate the ECRH and the EU (in its various guises). I still haven't concluded whether it is through ignorance or a deliberate attempt to confuse their audience

I am a little stupid - what is the "ECRH"?

Its the European Court of Rabbits and Hares.

Burrow hard enough and you get the answer! Thanks.

The issue really is whether the fosterers share those views. it cant be taken as read that because they're a member of a political party they buy into every policy.
many parties have policies that their members do not share.

my cousin is a fosterer and a member of the labour party. nobody would suggest that she should be banned from fostering children from a middle eastern background because of that party's recent tendency to invade those countries!

Meanwhile ...




[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/26/rotherham-council-leader-ukip-fosteringsource[/url

AFAIK, what Farage believes in is sovereignty remaining in Westminster.

"Self governance" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.
It could mean Home Rule for Yorkshire for some people.
To others, it could mean an independent Scotland.
I happen to think that Federalism is self-governance, ... see Switzerland, Australia, USA, Germany, etc. all of whom are federal and all of whom appear to be doing fine on the self-governance front.
Sure, you get anti-Washington voices in California and anti-Canberra voices in Victoria ... but you get that regardless of the configuration, just as we hear anti-Westminster voices.

Farage is a blinkered little-Englander, having jolly japes as an MEP poking fun at Johnny Foreigner whilst failing to notice that the world has changed.

Whilst I don't think he is necessarily racist, I do think he's xenophobic.

I'm a foster carer and I am pretty concerned with what i'm seeing.

Suppose i best confess now 2 lads came to live at my house last December, they were massively into football, I converted them to Rugby League and they now follow Huddersfield. Show me to the gallows.

In other words, Rotherham have yet again made a balls up but daren't admit it (hiding behind case complexity) because they know full well that balls ups got the them into special measures and all manner of other problems previously. They really are a lousy council, particularly in the area of children's services. How come the leader still has a job?

No, in other words: neither you nor any of the other commentators on this case have the first clue about what the real circumstances surrounding the children's removal are.

And in other news: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/27/ukip-candidate-gay-adoption-abuseFurther evidence of UKIP's policies on adoption[/url

Poor lads.
They'll be fine during the first half of the season but what are they going to do in August?

Disagree. The real circumstances are very well documented.

When appearing live on national television, the lady from Rotherham Council stated that the sole reason the children were removed was the UKIP membership.

Following a entirely justified pasting in the national press, have they since invented a series of reasons to justify the initial decision?

One of the main problems with social work is that any new entrant to the profession has to spend 3 years being indoctrinated with left-wing bullpoop before being let loose on society.

As a result, we end up with people more interested in socially engineering some sort of left-wing utopia, rather than acting in the best interests of those they are supposed to help.

Thats FACT is it, all social workers are communist ?

Does that mean that you can't have a right wing social worker by definition ?

I take them to the Shay

I doubt many right wingers can bring themselves to utter the word social in any context.

Please illustrate at what point I have said that.

How far left would you like it to go before you start calling it communist, FFS the Americans thought Atlee was a communist in 1948




But the finer point is - does your definition of a social worker mean that there can be no right wing social workers, given that they all spend their first three years being indoctrinated in left wing bullpoop in order to establish some sort of left wing utopia ?

I'm not disagreeing with you by the way, I too think its impossible to find a person with right wing views having the right empathy to be a social worker.

I was listening to a Tory MP, who is also a doctor on Five Live today and his views on health service provision and making those that need it most either pay or be excluded from treatment because of such things as diet are right out there with Romney and the other right wing nut jobs in America. I reckon even being a doctor is something they should refrain from, seeing as you need a reasonable amount of caring for the role.

I heard his comments too and unfortunately I've heard them often when conversing with Americans who don't even think themselves to be "very" Republican, just "leaning towards Republicanism", I'm often surprised by just how far right some of their society has moved without even realising it.

Certainly the doctor should have his registration looked into but the current government have been quick to distance themselves from his comments.

Is this the barmpot who reckons the only people who should benefit from free (at point of use) healthcare are those that don't need it?

Basically, yes, he reckons that most illnesses are self inflicted and if so the inflictee should pay for at least some of their treatment, he specifically include type 2 diabetes in that, and he'll definitely include anything he can link to smoking, drinking or drug use, presumably if you can't pay then he'll just let you die and good riddance.

Must be very re-assuring if he's your GP, I'd want to take my solicitor in with me for appointments.





Which reminds me, I took up an offer from my GP to have a free health check last month and one of the questions was "How many units of alcohol do you drink in a week ?", I replied "None" to which the nurse then felt she had to explain what a unit was and then offered to put me down for maybe ten units ?

I had to explain to her that I knew what a unit of alcohol was and that "None" meant zero, I don't drink alcohol, I last had even just one unit months and months ago and its been a decade since I last sat down and drank four or five units in one session - she couldn't believe it, I reckon I must be almost unique around here now.

It being Rotherham, then yes, we all know: they made the wrong decision. That's pretty much a default stance for Rotherham.

I too am a Foster Carer and am guilty of taking children to watch Wakefield Trinity.

Well done, a valuable lesson in life, that.
Demonstrates admirably that wanting something, even achingly wanting it, won't bring it about.