Foster children taken away because parents were UKIP supporters

[Gimlet]

I am not a social worker and I know they do a very difficult job with impossible case loads meaning that they work far longer hours than they are contracted for with no reward and even less thanks. Community nurses are giving up because they are expected to take on more and more, meaning they cannot look after their patients properly (I know as we employ one now as our housekeeper). If things are so rosy in the public sector, why not work in it yourself and see what it is really like?

 

Nick

 

The above is a direct result of an out of control population boom and an ever expanding welfare state. Both have been engineered for political advantage.

It is true there is plenty of incompetence in the private sector, but those responsible can be sacked. If there are too many of them to sack the company will go bankrupt. Those are the natural laws of commerce. In the public sector those laws have been suspended by political rigging and the absence of proper principals of accounting. The fall out is precisely the same as in a badly run business except there is no process of economic failure, death and regeneration to clear up the mess. Failure becomes the norm and it spreads.

[spanj]

In fact try looking at ours compared to france

 

Perhaps you should also compare the two land masses !! Also, previous governments have all but admitted they have no idea how many they have allowed in. I take it your figures are taken from some sort of census......... lots of the aforesaid will not have completed one.

[henry d]

Depends how you read the stats.

 

In the 36 years from 1960 to the general election of 1997 there was an increase in the population of 5.6 million.

 

Since the 1997 general election, and under Labour, the population increased by 4 million in just 13 years.

 

That sort of increase is totally unsustainable.

 

Have a look at the stats then, France - comparable to the UK, an increase of 5.2 million, Spain however has an increase of 6.75 million.

 

Click on the link http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+population+statistics#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR:ESP:FRA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

 

If it doesn`t show UK, France and Spain, just click on the LHS where it says "compare by region". Strange that a lot of people seem to think that all economic migrants come here, both France and Spain`s graphs show a greater increase than ours

[poontang]

Have a look at the stats then, France - comparable to the UK, an increase of 5.2 million, Spain however has an increase of 6.75 million.

 

Click on the link http://www.google.co...dl=en&ind=false

 

If it doesn`t show UK, France and Spain, just click on the LHS where it says "compare by region". Strange that a lot of people seem to think that all economic migrants come here, both France and Spain`s graphs show a greater increase than ours

 

Yes, but my point is we simply cannot sustain the level of immigration.

 

The population density of the UK is 255 per Km2, France is 111 per Km2 and Spain is only 88 per Km2.

 

To put it simply...we're full.

[beeredup]

Yes, but my point is we simply cannot sustain the level of immigration.

 

The population density of the UK is 255 per Km2, France is 111 per Km2 and Spain is only 88 per Km2.

 

To put it simply...we're full.

 

bang on the button and the reason we are full?? we have the most generous easy to abuse benefits system in the known universe!!

[henry d]

What don`t you get, were increasing in comparable terms to other nations, it`s following the same trends and has to include our "own" people reproducing, what do we do apply a one child limit?

 

bang on the button and the reason we are full?? we have the most generous easy to abuse benefits system in the known universe!!

Go back and re-read.

[beeredup]

What don`t you get, were increasing in comparable terms to other nations, it`s following the same trends and has to include our "own" people reproducing, what do we do apply a one child limit?

 

 

Go back and re-read.

 

Henry i read and fully understood Poontangs post fully thank you very much our country is simply not big enough to sustain the immigration and our own resident populations growth combined so seeing as i cant see the goverment putting bromide in the nations water supplies the only sensible option is to control immigration!

[Gimlet]

Yes, but my point is we simply cannot sustain the level of immigration.

 

The population density of the UK is 255 per Km2, France is 111 per Km2 and Spain is only 88 per Km2.

 

To put it simply...we're full.

 

Its worse than that. The figures for Britain are skewed by a sparcely populated Scotland. For England where 90% of the population live and crucially will continue to live the density is much greater than that. I can't do km but its roughly 1000/sq mile. The present figure for the UK as a whole is abut 650/ sq mile. That is based on the census figures of a population of 63 million. That figure is not credible since it does not account for the vast numbers of illegal imigrants, their offspring and transient migrants with no leave to remain whose numbers remain stable though the individuals change. And in any case there is no reliable figure for immigrant numbers since the system is in complete collapse. I don't doubt that the true figure for the whole country is closer to 70 million, and when the bar on Bulgarian and Romanian migrants is lifted in 2014 29 million more will be free to enter, and between 3 and 5 million will certainly do so almost overnigh with more to follow. Given that none of those people who are here already or due to arrive shortly will ever be repatriated and that most of them will be young and will breed the population will be heading for 100 million by 2050.

[Vince Green]

It wasn't Social engineering by the Labour Party. That implies some sort of grand plan and gives them more credit than they deserve. It was a simple and rather sordid attempt to grab votes because they knew that the vast majority of immigrants will vote labour. As will all the British families living their whole life on benefits with no intention of ever working.

 

You have to remember that the Labour Party was created out of the trade union movement to represent the working classes. Yet no sector of the population has been more adversely affected by their policy on immigration.

[kdubya]

It wasn't Social engineering by the Labour Party. That implies some sort of grand plan and gives them more credit than they deserve. It was a simple and rather sordid attempt to grab votes because they knew that the vast majority of immigrants will vote labour. As will all the British families living their whole life on benefits with no intention of ever working.

 

You have to remember that the Labour Party was created out of the trade union movement to represent the working classes. Yet no sector of the population has been more adversely affected by their policy on immigration.

 

just about right, but I am also sure the influx was also encouraged as a means of maintaining low pay.

 

KW

[darebear]

Unfortunately there are incompetents in all walks of life - retailers going to the wall, banks leading us into a financial mess, transport companies walking away from contracts when it suits them.... The list can go on but I am glad that you are so confident in these shining examples of commercial prowess.

 

I am not a social worker and I know they do a very difficult job with impossible case loads meaning that they work far longer hours than they are contracted for with no reward and even less thanks. Community nurses are giving up because they are expected to take on more and more, meaning they cannot look after their patients properly (I know as we employ one now as our housekeeper). If things are so rosy in the public sector, why not work in it yourself and see what it is really like?

 

Nick

 

I've worked in front line child protection for over 10 years. I put my heart and soul into my job, work ridiculously long hours for what I consider is insufficient pay, and get no thanks/reward whatsoever. Usually just abuse, both verbal and physical - not just from family's but the general public. It's nice to hear my profession being backed up for a change.

[Reece]

A little off topic, but still relevant enough I think. I emailed UKIP to ask about their policies on shooting and wildlife, etc. It took a while for them to respond because they have understandably been busy, but here is the email:

 

 

Thank you for your email. As you can probably imagine it is incredibly hectic here at the moment (It's usually busy, but this is something far different). So please forgive the delay in responding. As you can see, I'm copying this to Nigel Farage's office in Brussels for them to add any comments should they wish.

 

UKIP is in favour of game shooting. Pheasant tastes nice and provides lots of employment and economic activity in the British countryside.

 

We are committed to maintaining and protecting wildlife, and that includes "country sports". We believe that wind farms (and thousands of ugly pylons) should not be plonked across our beautiful landscape, and would protect the Green Belt (we are also opposed to the HS2 railway, partly because it would wreck one of the loveliest bis of England and partly because it is going to be a financial black hole and white elephant combined.

 

Animal culls.... we are driven by the science. Trouble is, that scientists are themselves divided. I'm frankly not sure of UKIP's official position on this one but I imagine that we would probably be in favour of a limited cull in order to measure whether a reduction in TB is the result. If culling badgers does result in a sharp drop in TB cases in livestock then we would probably be in favour of a cull, but it would be with a heavy heart.

 

So if anyone is thinking about UKIP, don't worry. They're not anti shooting.

[Gimlet]

I'm reserving judgement. I intended to join UKIP after the fostering scandal but I wanted some policy details first and I've struggled to get anything specific out of them. They make the right noises but without detail and small print noise is all it is. Bearing in mind some of their staunchest support comes from disaffected rural Tories, I was expecting some real red meat on rural issues, not mood music. On the question of badger culling they sound as populist as the rest of the parties. Why should culling be done with a heavy heart? The badger is a destructive predator whose numbers are out of control and that fact ought to be given the same weight as the commercial considerations of TB infection in cattle. The Disneyfied sentimentality of the urban majority who know nothing at all about the animals beyond the anthropomorphising of childrens story books should have no influence on policy whatsoever. I would like to see the badger population rigorously controlled, purely for the sake of wildlife diversity and the protection of other species. Its a shame scientists, divided or not, cannot condescend to bring their moral and intellectual authority to bear on that question. And a pity UKIP aren't showing more commitment. I would like to see a political party offering genuine, knowledgable and long-term policies on landscape and wildlife management.

UKIP are certainly speaking my language but they'll need to go a lot further to convince this disillusioned sceptic. I've heard it all before.

[Reece]

I'm reserving judgement. I intended to join UKIP after the fostering scandal but I wanted some policy details first and I've struggled to get anything specific out of them. They make the right noises but without detail and small print noise is all it is. Bearing in mind some of their staunchest support comes from disaffected rural Tories, I was expecting some real red meat on rural issues, not mood music. On the question of badger culling they sound as populist as the rest of the parties. Why should culling be done with a heavy heart? The badger is a destructive predator whose numbers are out of control and that fact ought to be given the same weight as the commercial considerations of TB infection in cattle. The Disneyfied sentimentality of the urban majority who know nothing at all about the animals beyond the anthropomorphising of childrens story books should have no influence on policy whatsoever. I would like to see the badger population rigorously controlled, purely for the sake of wildlife diversity and the protection of other species. Its a shame scientists, divided or not, cannot condescend to bring their moral and intellectual authority to bear on that question. And a pity UKIP aren't showing more commitment. I would like to see a political party offering genuine, knowledgable and long-term policies on landscape and wildlife management.

UKIP are certainly speaking my language but they'll need to go a lot further to convince this disillusioned sceptic. I've heard it all before.

 

I imagine they probably will the closer we get to the next general election.

 

 

I'm no expert on politics, but when you think about it, the only way to be sure that a party will stick by its words is to vote them in, and that makes things a little awkward because if they turn out not to be what they first appeared, you have to put up with the party for another 5 years. Words are just words.

 

But I am seriously considering UKIP at the next election. They say they want evidence that a badger cull would work, unless the cull is scrapped (which seems unlikely), then we will be seeing some evidence sooner or later, before the next election comes up. It's probably best to leave this stuff until nearer the election.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Reece

[NickS]

 

 

I've worked in front line child protection for over 10 years. I put my heart and soul into my job, work ridiculously long hours for what I consider is insufficient pay, and get no thanks/reward whatsoever. Usually just abuse, both verbal and physical - not just from family's but the general public. It's nice to hear my profession being backed up for a change.

 

I really have no idea why people choose social work as a career. I am a teacher and have been involved in a number of child protection cases and I have firsthand experience of how seriously social workers take their responsibility but can only imagine the toll it must take on them. They have so much responsibility but their decisions are put under the microscope to be judged by those with 20/20 hindsight. Of course the vast majority of cases are resolved satisfactorily but when they go wrong they make headlines - often it is "damned if you do, damned if you don't". I could not do it and admire those who try.

 

Nick

[Gimlet]

I imagine they probably will the closer we get to the next general election.

 

 

I'm no expert on politics, but when you think about it, the only way to be sure that a party will stick by its words is to vote them in, and that makes things a little awkward because if they turn out not to be what they first appeared, you have to put up with the party for another 5 years. Words are just words.

 

But I am seriously considering UKIP at the next election. They say they want evidence that a badger cull would work, unless the cull is scrapped (which seems unlikely), then we will be seeing some evidence sooner or later, before the next election comes up. It's probably best to leave this stuff until nearer the election.

 

 

OK, I'm taking the plunge. The deciding factor was the DVD Overcrowded Britain. www.OverCrowded.eu Its horrific. If the future is abandoned to the path set or blindly accepted by the other parties there will be no point in worrying about gunlaws, wildlife conservation or rural issues in general because there will be no countryside as we currently understand it anywhere in England within 30 years and within 50 years the English will be an ethnic minority in the country that belongs to them.

 

I'm also delighted to see a party commited to doubling defence spending.

The cheque is in the post.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Gimlet

[Richard V]

OK, I'm taking the plunge. The deciding factor was the DVD Overcrowded Britain. www.OverCrowded.eu Its horrific. If the future is abandoned to the path set or blindly accepted by the other parties there will be no point in worrying about gunlaws, wildlife conservation or rural issues in general because there will be no countryside as we currently understand it anywhere in England within 30 years and within 50 years the English will be an ethnic minority in the country that belongs to them.

 

I'm also delighted to see a party commited to doubling defence spending.

The cheque is in the post.

 

Nice one!

[henry d]

Link is stuffed...

[overandunder2012]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FHSqX6h1qI

[overandunder2012]

im going ukip

[NickS]

You clearly have not thought this through - who will wash your car whilst you go shopping??

 

Nick

[Gimlet]

Sorry about the link. I've emailed UKIP to tell them it doesn't work. I've trawled their site to try and find it online without success. They're releasing more DVDs of the film which you can request by post. Ring 0800 587 6587. But that's a hopeless approach.

Why oh why they can't release it online I don't know. I don't think IT is UKIP's strongpoint. They desperately need a web expert.

[henry d]

So "England is the most densely populated area of Europe", in that case I suggest that there be a ban on people, in England, having children....simples.

 

 

Perhaps the UKIP should change its name to EIP?

[overandunder2012]

i must admit i want to know more about what else ukip have as policy's apart from boarder controls before i vote

[Gimlet]

Look on their website. The point Reece made above is a good one: its hard to get fine policy details from any party so far from a general election. Too much could change leaving parties vulnerable to making apparent u-turns.

In essence UKIP favours leaving the EU, small government, greatly reduced welfare state, a low tax low regulation economy, rigorous points-based immigration controls, a return to proper defence spending, abandoning so-called green power generation form sources proven to be both costly and useless and as in the case of wind, destructive, and developing realistic home-produced power from nuclear and shale gas subject to viability.

They also favour a simplified taxation system with a flat tax replacing income tax and National Insurance with a threshold of £11,500 taking low earners out of the tax system altogether. No employer's NI, phasing out inheritance tax and replacing VAT with a local sales tax.

They want to restore grammer schools, apprenticeships, student grants and ditch politicism and targets in state education, provide proper vocational training and ditch the fantasy of 50% of all children going to university which has devalued degrees, ruined the life chances of thousands and left the country with few skilled artisans. Don't know whether they would keep Micheal Gove's free schools, but I would hope so. They are the best thing this government has done.

They would double defence spending and recruit 25,000 more regular troops with proper pay and medical care.

I believe they also favour PR, which I don't. One coalition government in a lifetime is more than enough; we don't want this horse-trading and shabby deal-making every term. And they want binding referendums on key natinal issues where no choice is offered by the main parties, which I do like. Where there is no choice between parties we get a political elite deciding our future in back rooms without democratic mandate.

 

On balance, I'm in favour. Not perfect but a great stride in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Gimlet