Sorry, just gonna rant at the bottom of your post for a minute.
Firstly, the desperation of these people that they photoshopped a stock photo. They’re not even photoshopping a real picture ffs.
Secondly, there aren’t enough foster placements as it is. You don’t go turning down a foster family because they’re not the same race or religion as the child. The law says you give “consideration” to a child’s race and religion – that’s it. There’s nothing wrong with placing a white Christian child with a Muslim family. The problem comes when its the other way round – when a child comes from a minority religious/racial background they’re more likely to lose their cultural identity when they’re adopted/fostered by a white family. It doesn’t work the other way round, because we live in a majority white Christian society.
Thirdly, this story is clearly bullshit and I wouldn’t be surprised if the source of it was some bitter parents who want to sabotage the placement. One moment, the papers are suggesting that the foster carers don’t speak English and the next we’re told they said all kinds of nonsense which the kid clearly understood. The local council have already said its nonsense but what newspapers rely on with this stuff is the fact that the council can’t disclose the truth because of confidentiality.
This kid has already been removed from her family. Now after six months with her carers, the placement might have to end prematurely because the Daily fucking Mail had to stick its nose in.
Finally I don’t recall the DM taking this tack when a council was accused of removing some Eastern European children from the foster care of some UKIP voters. They were absolutely OUTRAGED at the time that a person’s beliefs could prevent them from being foster carers. (The story wasn’t even true but whatever). As dangerous beliefs go, thinking Christmas is shite is arguably less dangerous than thinly veiled fascist propaganda.
1) According to court documents, it was the police not the local authority (as stated by the tabloids) who put the child into foster care.
2) According to court documents, the foster family criticised by the tabloids was a temporary placement.
3) According to court documents, the child herself is from Muslim heritage and her Muslim grandmother has now been cleared by the courts to look after her. This fact is only disputed by the girl’s mother but none of this was mentioned by the tabloids as it would obviously totally destroy their narrative:
4) The temporary foster mother did not wear a veil as stated by the tabloids. She wears a hijab.
The veil in the photographs published by the Mail and other comics was photoshopped onto a stock picture of a Muslim family taking a walk in a park in Dubai
5) According to court documents, the child’s mother has not at any time requested the foster parents be changed.
6) Tower Hamlets council have confirmed that the temporary foster parents do speak English. According to court documents, the Family Court dealing with the case has also expressed no concerns about the foster parents’ level of English. The press simply lied about that:
7) According to council foster care officials, the temporary foster parents did not ban Easter as stated by the tabloids. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied about that.
8) There is no evidence, apart from claims by the tabloid press, that the temporary foster parents have banned crucifixes and bacon from the home. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied.
9) According to court documents, it seems the child was put into temporary foster care by the police because of the mother’s alcohol and drugs problems. There was no mention of this fact by the tabloid press, presumably as it would put a question mark over the mother’s credibility and her criticism of the temporary foster parents.
10) The foster parents have been rated very highly by independent assessors, including the child’s own independent Children’s Guardian whose job is to advocate solely for the welfare of the child:
Those are the sad facts of the case. It is beyond disgusting that supposedly professional journalists would manipulate a tragic case involving a little child to further the political ends of their proprietors.
The following so-called journalists are either so incompetent they got the facts wrong, or they lied. Either way, they should be sacked:
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 