After the public outcry over children being taken away from foster parents simply because they supported UKIP, Godfrey Bloom suggests Rotherham Council's social services department has become a 'shadowy' organisation.
• When first I heard that Rotherham's social services had taken away small children from a safe and loving couple after eight weeks, a long time in disturbed children's lives, we did not actually believe it. I simply could not believe it, coming so soon after that authority's terrible failings in sexual abuse, that the same people could be so crass and incompetent.
The offence of the foster parents? Simply membership of what is now arguably England's third political party. No criticism was even hinted at as to the treatment of these children by this experienced and charming middle England couple. One wonders what twisted individual could make such a decision, a supposedly 'child care professional' whatever that may mean these days. The trauma to those children can only be imagined, taken from their natural parents and now snatched from foster parents.
They will be assuming they have done wrong somehow. They could be scarred for life. How do these people get these jobs? What are the selection criteria? Why are they protected from consistent failure? Why was there not a root and branch clear out at Rotherham after the last debacle? More importantly - for years these sorts of blunders have taken place with social services' appalling decisions with no redress. Who gave them such power? To whom do they report?
Even when they are so bad, so obviously wrong, they depart with pay-offs which are greater than most people's life savings. Watch this enquiry degenerate into nit picking over some obscure book of regulations complied by even more idiot bureaucrats. I can smell the whitewash already.
Fascinatingly, I was interviewed by Radio Leeds on Saturday morning and Five Live on Saturday night and in spite of every representative of political parties, and the minister responsible, condemning this abuse of power - both interviewers were vehement in support of this social security monster. Somehow, it was UKIP's fault for being and I quote "perceived to be anti-multicultural". What does this gobbledegook mean?
Surely they were taken away from this family because it was multi-cultural? The foster parents were indigenous middle England and the children were Eastern European. How can BBC presenters have learned so little humility after the Jimmy Saville revelations? Is the mindnumbing right on political correctness extended to everyone who works in the public sector? Surely not.
Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper has been campaigning for years to curb the total power and the secrecy attached to these shadowy people, who can steal our children at will, with impunity. This looks to me like a Rotherham Labour Council election stunt that has gone badly wrong. I would like to see a regional body of non-professionals make final decisions of this sort.
I would suggest a small panel of grandparents of good standing who could bring some common sense to proceedings. We must join Booker's campaign, may I suggest the slogan: "More common sense, less common purpose". It seems to me whenever you drill down on these sorts of dreadful mistakes you find the perpetrator a 'graduate' of common purpose. A shadowy and sinister organisation if ever there was one.