A Place to Stand

A couple had their three foster children taken away by a council on the grounds that their membership of the UK Independence Party meant that they supported “racist” policies.
The couple from near Rotherham who had the children they were fostering taken away after it was discovered they were supporters of UKIP
The husband and wife, who have been fostering for nearly seven years, said they were made to feel like criminals when a social worker told them that their views on immigration made them unsuitable carers.....

"Being a supporter of a mainstream political party is not a deal-breaker when it comes to looking after children if it means they can have a loving family home.”

The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.

Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years....
They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”...
The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’....
The wife said she told the social worker and agency official: “These kids have been loved. These kids have been treated no differently to our own children. We wouldn’t have taken these children on if we had been racist.”....

The wife said the social worker told her: “We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of Ukip because it wouldn’t have been the right cultural match.” The wife said she was left “bereft”, adding: “We felt like we were criminals. From having a little baby in my arms, suddenly there was an empty cot. I knew she wouldn’t have been here for ever, but usually there is a build-up of several weeks. I was in tears.”....

.....Ukip has a black candidate in the forthcoming Croydon North by-election.

     I have underlined the bit which suggests this is just the tip of the iceberg. For every child stolen publicly because their real or foster parents have unapproved political thoughts there must be dozens, perhaps hundreds where it is done quietly, either never approving them for adoption or where these fascist parasites had the sense to pretend it was for another reason.
 This is the comment I put on Bishop Hill who put it under the heading "soft totalitarianism":   Not so "soft" this totalitarianism.
Not long ago these fascist parasites took a woman's child because she was a member of the EDL. This got little media coverage or political concern (including from UKIP) because after all it was the Jews, sorry EDL.

Pastor Neimoller's words clearly apply:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

------------------

There are those who would imprison or section sceptics. Already children are being failed in exams when even the markers admit they were well informed, simply for expressing doubt that catastrophic warming is taking place
Life for children in council care is a cruel and unusual punishment as the close correlation with subsequent criminality, drink and drug abuse, illiteracy, suicide and almost every measure of human failure shows.

Yet social workers have nearly 100,000 children in "care", for which they get well over £10 billion from the taxpayer. Rochdale proves the "professional carers" not only do not care for them but allow them to be raped. Rape of children by "professional carers" is common, as described by Benjamin Zephaniah from personal experience, recently on Question Time. Despite the "professional carers" claiming this was being done "for the children" it is clear they did not ask them and virtually certain it was done against their wishes.

This is somewhere that a line in the sand must be drawn.

Politicians of all parties must unite in saying that taking these children is a disgusting fascist act. The Labour party must require that their Rotherham council not only reverse the decision but that the totalitarian fascists who did this never get paid from the public purse again.
It is impossible that any politician who is not personally an out and out fascist could support the "professional carers" position which in turn means that any remotely honest journalistic organisation (that wouldn't include the BBC) could ever describe any such politician as being in any way anti-fascist."
----------------------------------
  Note that in Scotland you are 2 1/2 times more likely to have yoour children taken into council "care" than in England. This can only be either because Scots parents are 2 1/2 times more abusive than English or because we have 2 1/2 times more totalitarian ideologues in our councils.

  We also have the case, a few days ago, of the man who was removed from his job simply because he held the politically incorrect view that the word "marriage" sgould not be redefined for idological reasons.

  I do not think it can be honestly suggested that those in the EDL or BNP have demonstrated that they are in any way as fascist as these state funded, child abusing "professional carers". Or than any politician, who has approved of firing BNP or EDL members from public service but is not willing to say loudly and publicly that these child abusers should be.

  The BBC's 28gate scandal has proven that the BBC lied to us for 6 years that their unstinted propagandising of the catastrophic warming scare had the backing of 28 "leading scientists" when in fact all but 2 weren't scientists at all but an amalgam of "green" activists, "renewables" salesmen and foreign "aid" workers. By comparison the Savile scandal can, arguably, be put down to mere avoidance of the truth.

   However if it has proven impossible for even the BBC, with all its resources and previous prestige, to find 28 real scientists anywhere willing to sign up to the catastrophic warming scare then it is difficult, despite the hundreds of billions spent on it, to take it seriously.

Neil Craig

  And finally - this morning on Radio Scotland (Kay's Show about 10.15) I heard the dulcit tones of Peter Adams, the Secretary of UKIP in Scotland. For a minite I thought the BBC had slightly taken leave of their prejudices and  were actually interviewing somebody from the party that polls show has more support in Scotland than the Greens or indeed LudDims.   

 I was wrong.

It wasn't an interview or debate it was a few seconds obviously prerecorded. What followed was an about 10 times longer interview with a representative of the EU who was given untrammeled allowance to put the EU point. Even claiming, untruthfully, that our trade with the EU is growing as a proportion of our trade - in fact it is declining as the EU is mired in recession and the rest of the world economy growing at 6%. But this is the BBC so lets not let facts get in  the way.       Since it was a phone in show I rang   0500 929500 - this is the Radio Scotland number for to ring if you want to speak on any phone in show.- good luck

       The lady replied calling me by name (they must have number recognition software to ensure suitable people get on). I said I would like to ask why Mr Adams had not been given a full interview or allowed to answer the EU supporter & why they were choosing EU supporters disproportionaly from among those phoning in. She said I would be phoned back with an explanation (so far I haven't but will adda na addendum if it happens), but clearly was not going to be invited to speak.        Kay's final words at the end of this carefully censored one sided "discussion" said that though it had statred off wirh somebody being anti-EU

      "we have ended up on a much more positive note"       

Indeed. How unexpected.
--------------------
      The BBC sometimes claim that when they don't read out a comment it is because they get so many and can only read a small proportion. As I was finishing this Brian on his "Big debate" said he had chosen to ask a question about Nadine Dories because "we got 3 or 4 questions .... hundreds, sent in"

 UPDATE - I have been contacted by Peter who confirms "I was called this morning at 7.45 to ask me if I wanted to contribute. I was on from the start at 8.50 and had a few comments between then and 09.30 The bit you heard at 1015 was when they came back to the original theme. However by this time they had managed to find a couple of pro EU speakers as most people who had been on at the start had been anti EU, but Kaye's final comment about "starting on a negative note but finishing on a positive one" says it all"

   Where apology is due it should be done. I apologise to the BBC and Kaye for believing Peter's contribution was limited to what was broadcast after 10. It was clearly closer to being balanced than I would have expected & perhaps closer than the BBC expected too.

you can listen again on this link. Fast forward to 4mins to get past the introduction and also when you get to the news you can forward it from 10 mins to 16.30 when it restarts http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nthdw

     Secret State is a new TV series. There was a previous one based on the same story, some years ago called A Very British Coup. The PM in the latest one is markedly a classless bland Labour politician completely different from the, came up through the unions, leader of the last one. This is an accurate depiction of the modern party.

    However that is just the window dressing.                                        

    What shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the "left" is that his the plan for getting the economy moving, produced out of a hat last night, is something that might credibly be believed.

    He announced, after a very brief word with the Prime Minister of India (these foreigners, having no parliamentary system doon't have to discuss it back home) that he had a cunning Plan.

    Nationalise the Royal Bank of Scotland (called the Royal Caledonian Bank to show this is fiction) to ensure it lends to small companies and projects the government wants >  take the trilions deposited in it and invest it in renewables > sell the resulting cheap renewable technology to India + as a thank you the Indians and the British government will "guarantee the £" against falling.     

  There is only 1 problem with this.

   Its bollocks.

1 -   Nationalising the bank has indeed been suggested by the likes of Cable. Since the state owns about 80% since the bail out it wouldn't be difficult. The reason for not doing so is that under direct state control it would be forced to lend for political not economic reasons, precisely as suggested.

2 - In fact banks are already strongly infuenced by the nods and winks of government about whom they lend to. The American mortgage crash was largely caused because government told them to lend to ethnic minorities without the income to keep paying. They are also influenced by government borrowing an extra £120 bn a year which soaks up so much of the cash available.

  All that would happen is that all the customers of a bank so obviously being looted by the politicians would get their money out while it was still possible - leaving the government owning a very expensive empty shell.

5 - The British govenment already guarantees the £ against falling. That is what a national fiat currency is. Though India's economy is bigger than ours it is unlikely that they could stop a run on the £, over the long term and absolutely certain that no remotely responsible government would put up their entire foreign exchange reserves just because some the Sahibs want it. After all Germany isn't doing it for the euro.

But the real lunacy is #3 and it shows how the "left" is totally divorced from the commitment to real industry that it traditionally had & has been taken over by the eco-loons.

3 - Throwing unlimited money at an industry that is inherently inefficient won't make it efficient. You just blow the money. In this world magic doesn't work and wishing or making offerings to the gods doesn't make it happen.
4 - There is no way that "investing" all the RBS money will produce windmills that can provide India with competitive power because they can't do it anywhere else thus no way India would buy them.
======================

  The really annoying thing is that, assuming the Indian government was only slightly as supportive as this scenario demands, a working traditional socialist alternative would be not only possible but easy.

   We could build a factory mass producing nuclear reactors. That would cost maybe £100-200 billion - far less than we have already stumped up for RBS, let alone the multiple of that the story thinks could be looted from it.

   By mass producing them, with a sensible regulatory regime, we could produce them cheaper than anywhere else in the world. The Indians would buy them (as would anybody else working on economic rather than political decisions),

   More than that we could design reactors that use thorium rather than uranium. Thorium is 4 times more common than uranium and in particular is far more available in India than even that. India would love to be able to buy such reactors and because Britain still has a very much stronger scientific and engineering base, we could produce them.

   India's economy would take off. So would ours. Everybody happy.

    Moreover this is exactly what socialism used to stand for - pushing for technological progress and thus creating wealth. But the modern mutation of the "left" is, as the fact that the programme appears even an approxiamation to reality, absolutely opposed to its original core values.

    By comparison the "right" is much more open to traditional "left" ideas than the modern pseudo-left is. Here is a discussion on pretty much this subject with Mark Wadsworth who, despite being slightly more morket oriented than I, says such a government scheme would work:

   neil craig said...


So if, instead of £5 bn plus £670m for being allowed to apply, a reactor could be built for £2.5 bn (twice the cost of 1.6 Westinghouse AP 1000s) the production cost would go down to 3.2p which is pretty much what France managed for decades.

If putting it in place were to cost less than the reactor itself &/or if investors were as confident it wouldn't be closed down or nationalised without compensation as they are with other infrastructure the cost could drop proportionately further - at least another 3rd. If the reactor cost dropped to $600 mill because it was a larger order and there were economiesw of scale you could take off another 25%.

Actually, purely because the government have scared off the free market this is a case where a national reactor programme, building as many as there is a market for, with major economies of scale, would give a very good return - if we trusted our government to be as competent as the French.

Say 50 Gigawatts at £600 mill + 50% installation = £45 billion where proportionately we are expecting the market to be willing to pay £177 bn/

Mark Wadsworth said...


NC, I agree that the UK government might as well just get on with it and hire somebody in to build nukes for us. And I agree that French cost-levels are something to aim at.
-----------------------------
    Fortunately the scenario would work just as well, if not better, if done by the free market.

  In response to this Spiked article about the conviction of Italian earthquake scientists.

O’Neill is wrong to say that scientists as a group are guilty of supporting the global warming scare.
Of the 60 per cent of the world’s scientists who are not paid by government, not a single one has been identified as supporting the catastrophe theory. Easily the largest single expression of an individual scientist’s opinion is the Oregon Petition signed by 31,000, saying a CO2 rise is actually a good thing.

What we see is government giving money and publicity to a very small number of people, none of whom have any independent scientific reputation, but who are willing to endorse the government’s desire for some scare story to keep us obedient.
In the Italian case too, it seems that the only verifiable failure was not that the convicted scientists made a false statement but that their political boss did. Thus the disaster is caused not by scientists claiming authority but by politicians claiming scientific authority and having the media control to make it stick.
Neil Craig, UK

  Nothing I haven't said before about warming but the comparison with Italy, where the political push was in the opposite direction, to damp down fear not to raise it, is worthwhile. The difference is that there was no extra power, taxes or controls to be gained by raising fears of earthquakes.

   Doubtless if the Church of England was a broad enough church to include earthquake gods, as it does catastrophic warmism, we would be being taxed to placate them.

  If you don't believe in conspiracy theory you can pass this. You can also believe that nobody on either side of theCAGW fraud is beling influenced by payment; that every politician who says "renewables2 are cheaper has done so after looking only at the facts; that nobody ever gave a contract to a friend and that military coups never happen.

   For the rest of you - the most important thing about conspiracies is who is conspiring & to do what. Or more accurately who is doing so succesfully, since it is a reasonable guess that almost everybody is doing something for reasons other than what they say.

    The main division seems to be between thaose who say the secret conspirators are in government and those who say they are in finance..

   Which brings me (via Steve Sailer) to a quote from Network from 1976 which goes, mainly, for finance.

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and Democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT &T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale! It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company for whom all men will work to serve a common profit and in which all men will own a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you to preach this evangel.


I commented.
For the nations that mastered the world then they don't look so big now.

Whiskey said...

ITT is gone. IBM a shadow of itself. Kodak, gone, basically. Dow, a shadow. So too, US Steel. GM is a bailed out zombie. Chrsyler is owned by the Italians. And people sure are willing to kill each other, Syrians slaughtering Syrians. Meanwhile Catalonia and Scotland are pressing for independence.

DaveinHackensack said...
IBM is the 9th largest company in the world by market cap, and has had an astonishingly long run of success, especially for a IT company. Exxon Mobil is the second largest company in the world by market cap, it will probably recapture #1 in a few years when Apple eventually deflates.

-----------------------------

  Despite Davien I think it is undeniable and stonishing how much the top companies have changed while government and nations are pretty much the same. That doesn't prove those companies didn't conspire against us but I submit it does prove they didn't do so successfully.

  Of course there could be secret financiers behind all of them who are now fincnciers of Google who really pull the strings but I don't think they hold real power.

  As Mao says power comes from the barrel of a gun and governments hold a monopoly on violence. And as I have pointed out so many times, the amount of money taken from us by paraistes in government is enormously more than any company, not given a government monopoly, can hope for.