Does Opposition to the EU’s Plan for a ‘New World Order’ Make You a Bad Parent?

Picture: DieScreamie (CC)

“We all got a gang mentality. Republicans are f—ing idiots. Democrats are f—ing idiots. Conservatives are idiots and liberals are idiots. Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a f—ing fool. Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I’m a conservative! I’m a liberal! I’m a conservative! It’s bull—t! Be a f—ing person. Listen. Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal decent person is one thing.” – Chris Rock

Does opposition to the EU make you an unfit parent? Her Majesty’s Government seems to think so…

Curious reports are emerging in the United Kingdom that foster parents have had children removed from their care because they belong to the libertarian[1] inspired UK Independence Party (UKIP).

Disinfo has carried critical articles on the decline of the would-be EU Superstate previously. However, the construction of a ‘new world order’ with the founders of all the world’s major Empires at its heart is viciously, and sometimes blindly, supported by people locked into and controlled by the “left wing” paradigm. It’s an awful irony that these “left wing” advocates claim to believe they’re opposing persecution yet are seen to gleefully persecute others with a different opinion[2].

The ‘tabloid’ newspaper The Sun summarises the story:

A FOSTER couple claim a council took away three kids from their care — because they belong to UKIP.

They say social workers told them the party has “racist policies”.

The couple rescued three kids — believed to be from an ethnic minority — in an emergency adoption in September.

Just weeks later, social workers took the trio away after hearing of the couple’s political leanings. The heartbroken mum said: “The implication was that we were racist.”

Read more from The Sun.

Despite debate being focused upon the dangers implicit in a continuing centralisation of bureaucratic power the dogmatic so-called left apear to be curiously anxious to push a poisonous racial angle. The BBC reports:

Rotherham Borough Council’s Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC: “We always try to place children in a sensible cultural placement.

These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children.”

She said the issue related to the party’s policies on immigration issues.

The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future.

[My emphasis]


For some readers in the USA it’s important to make a distinction between “the UK” and “England” here. Broadly speaking the United Kingdom is similar to the USA in that it formed to defend itself from external tyranny, in this instance coming from Europe. As with the USA membership has nothing to do with race whatsoever. For many there lies the crucial distinction between the terms. Disinfonaughts will know the word “defence” often extends to military campaigns which stretch its definition. With the UK this led to a world Empire. However, it’s less widely understood that as our Monarchy’s power receded many former subjects were told they were welcome to live in Britain should they wish to make the then near-impossible journey over. Believed to be an empty promise at the time, mass transportation in the industrial age meant some eventually took up the offer. In part this explains the rich racial diversity the islands now enjoy and why generally speaking most people driven by dull notions of ‘racial superiority’ cloak them in the iconography of English nationalism[3].

More detail on the story comes from a quote given by an apparently flustered and confused UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, in the Telegraph:

“I am outraged politically and very upset for them. I think this is the kind of thing where we need some sort of decree from a Government minister that Ukip is not a racist party.

“This is political prejudice of the very worst kind. It is just a bloody outrage.”

He pointed out that Ukip has a black candidate in the forthcoming Croydon North by-election.

UKIP’s website carries these slightly more composed words:

“Rotherham metropolitan borough council has many questions to answer, both publicly and privately.

“They have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias? “Publicly they must make absolutely clear the decision-making process in this case, who was responsible for this decision and why. “That the couple involved were former Labour voters, should give them pause for thought, or do they regard any questions about the level of migration into this country, as Gordon Brown did, as bigotry?[4]“

Further details are sketchy because the couple do not want the children identified and upset further, according to The Telegraph:

[The parents have] been fostering for nearly seven years, […] are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire.

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 took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.

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”.

However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.

They were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.

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?’

“Then one of them said, ‘Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.

“I’m sat there and I’m thinking, ‘What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.

“I’ve got mixed race in my family. I said, ‘I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party’.”

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 boy was taken away from them the following day and the two girls were removed at the end of that week.”

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, although not in front of the social worker.”

Her husband added: “If we were moving the children on to happier circumstances we would be feeling warm and happy. To have it done like that, it’s beyond the pale.”

The couple said they had been “stigmatised and slandered”.

[My emphasis]

The Telegraph’s version of the story is here.

It’s telling that early reports are slightly credulous, frequently using words such as “claim” and “they say”. So a note of caution here, the story’s lack of detail and timing have undermined it slightly. Although the above are all ‘reliable’ mainstream media sources there have been a number of quarters who have cast aspersions on the facts involved in the matter. Firstly a carefully worded statement, which falls short of a denial, has appeared on the British Association of Social Workers’ website:

[We] would not seek to defend this decision based on the limited amount of evidence available, as membership of UKIP should not of itself be a sufficient reason to remove a child or children from a foster placement. We would nonetheless caution against kneejerk condemnation, as so often in such cases the headlines and the realities are some distance apart.

[…] willingness on the part of foster parents to respect the culture and background of a child is extremely important, which is why UKIP’s reported position on multiculturalism appears to have been a cause for concern in this case.

However, membership of UKIP should not be considered, as an isolated factor, sufficient reason to dismiss the suitability of a parent or parents, which is why, given the limited information available, this decision is difficult to fully understand.

It’s clearly written so as not to directly compromise the assumed honesty of the two parents and with a legal point of view in mind. However it equally, and very forcefully by UK standards, suggests they’re skeptical about the reports. Another well written piece has been drawn to my attention by a twitter follower. It features on The Not So Big Society[5] which describes itself as being “written by and for those working in health and social care” in the UK:

But does this story have proper substance? […]

We also know [] a previous court case [a] judge had criticised the council for not adequately attending to the childrens’ cultural needs.

But as well as what we know, we also have to remember what we don’t know. The local authority will have a duty of confidentiality to these children. They won’t be in a position to go into the ins and outs of why they couldn’t continue to be housed by this particular foster family. When I asked Abe Laurens [a fellow social worker from a childcare background], he commented that, “In my experience such decisions are NEVER made on any single factor alone.” We don’t know what the other factors were.

[Also] There’s a by-election in Rotherham on Thursday. A Labour seat is up for grabs, and UKIP are campaigning hard.


And strangely enough, this has come out at the weekend, when the council would be in the least position to come out with a prompt response. What a coincidence!

It’s almost as if this is a media stunt intended to give UKIP a PR coup on the eve of the by-election.

And with Michael Gove and Ed Miliband lining up to give Rotherham Council a verbal kicking, it’s almost as if they’re desperately trying to avoid losing crucial votes to UKIP on Thursday.

Once again, social workers and vulnerable children are being used as a political football by opportunist politicians. What a surprise.

Original blog entry here

Either which way it appears even thinkers inclined towards the “left” believe this recent alleged attack upon opinions contrary to the establishment’s is literally unbelievable.

Personally speaking I think it’s unlikely to be without substance given the organisations involved in reporting it.

As always Disinfo welcomes your thoughts in the comments section. More than anything else this seems to me a fascinating case study in the dangers of left-right thinking. Be warned though: if you dare to oppose the EU there may be terrible consquences in store if you are unlucky enough to be a subject of Her Majesty’s Government…

Nick Margerrison.


[1] Libertarianism might be misunderstood in the US but it’s a literally alien concept to the UK. Only the rise of the internet has really allowed it to gradually become a political force for subjects of Her Majesty, The Queen.

[2] A recent Disinfo article sheds light on why this might be the case. “Serious Challenge To The Milgram Experiment” reports that scientists claim to have discovered people who inflict cruelty actually enjoy doing so if they are led to believe it is in the interests of a “greater good”.

[3] This explains why the nation apparently has two different flags. One, a red cross on a white background, is called The St George’s Cross and represents England alone. The other more colourful Union flag represents a combination of the respective flags of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Further reading regarding this debate, and attempts to reclaim the St George’s Cross from racists, can be found in this Telegraph article “St George’s flag is a racist symbol says a quarter of the English”. With these distinctions understood it is interesting to note the establishment’s apparent eagerness to encourage individual national identity within the UK and a forthcoming vote on whether Scotland should be given its independence. However to alledge this is part of a specific agenda currently goes beyond the available evidence as I understand it.

[4] During the election campaign Gordon Brown was asked by a woman who staunchly supported his political party, New Labour, if he was going to try to cut down Eurpoean immigration. The conversation in public was gracious and fair as Mr Brown put his contrary opinion across. However, once he considered himself to be hidden from the general public his true thoughts were captured by a TV microphone which he was unaware of. His furious rant at having been forced to address the issue directly sounded almost like a parody of the dogmatic left’s position. Later realising on live radio that he’d been caught calling an elderly pensioner a ‘bigot’ for asking an apparently reasonable question he claimed to be mortified. Despite his subsequent humiliating personal apology many think it lost him the general election: “Gordon Brown ‘mortified’ by his ‘bigoted woman’ slur

[5] This title implies the blog has a strong “left wing” paradigmatic bias as it is a parody of the laughably absurd notion that the “right wing” ruling party, The Conservatives, are trying to build a ‘Big Society’ while simultaniously making savage cuts to the UK’s welfare state.

A side note here, I appreciate the term “New World Order” is significantly loaded but it has been frequently used by Gordon Brown to describe his vision of the necessary consequences of globalisation. It’s a specific political term often used to refer to the EU and its place among the world powers of the future. It is included in the heading of this piece for those reasons.

Nick Margerrison

I write on Disinfo for fun, I've been a fan of the company for years.

In the real world I'm a freelance TV/radio presenter. I've worked for LBC, Kerrang Radio, The Bay, Edge Media TV, Hallam FM and The BBC.

My podcast is here:

8 Comments on "Does Opposition to the EU’s Plan for a ‘New World Order’ Make You a Bad Parent?"

  1. Good thing I’m fully in favor of a “New World Order”, then.

  2. cakey pig | Nov 25, 2012 at 10:07 am |

    UKIP are a bunch of small-minded Little Englander bigoted knobheads. There is nothing in their rejection of Europe to celebrate, because it’s for all the wrong reasons – they want to return to some bullshit idyllic 1950’s fantasy world that never existed. They’re massive nationalists and huge supporters of the monarchy, and definitely NOT any form of Libetarians.

    “[1] Libertarianism might be misunderstood in the US but it’s a literally alien concept to the UK. Only the rise of the internet has really allowed it to gradually become a political force for subjects of Her Majesty, The Queen.”

    I don’t agree with this. English Libertarianism has been alive and well for hundreds of years – the Peasant’s Revolt springs to mind, and what about Boadicea? Now she was no Europhile…

    EDIT: Just to say I do agree very much with what you say about the Left unknowingly ushering in the NWO through their support of the EU.

  3. VaudeVillain | Nov 25, 2012 at 10:42 am |

    There’s a bit at the end where the article takes a complete 180: ” it appears even thinkers inclined towards the “left” believe this recent alleged attack upon opinions contrary to the establishment’s is literally unbelievable.”

    If the original premise is that so-called leftists are gleefully lining up to oppress libertarians and conservatives, it sort of falls apart if the apparent liberal response to such a thing happening is to suspect that the whole thing is either fabricated or wildly exaggerated. It might not speak well to their willingness to believe ill of their own, but neither does it show them to support such actions.

    Love the Chris Rock quote, too.

  4. FutureByDesign | Nov 25, 2012 at 1:58 pm |

    Wouldn’t a one-world government make the most sense, though? As well as a one-world currency and a one-world bill of enforceable human rights? No one asked to be here on this glorified hunk of spinning rock. And it is completely arbitrary as to which continent you just happen to be born on. Who cares? You were born on earth – just like everyone else – and you should be guaranteed the same rights as everyone else: a roof over your head, along with clean drinking water and healthy food on the table. You should also be guaranteed access to health insurance and a quality education, but what you choose to do with those things past that point is up to you. Some will strive for more and some will remain content. Parental licensing would allow us to maintain population control, which effects the consumption of natural resources, and the ability to insure that everyone has equal access to all of the things just listed.

    Yes, I see the potential for where it could all go terribly-horribly wrong…but what if the system was structured so that it was by the people and for the people? If we must have elected officials, then make the system in which they represent us completely transparent so we can guarantee that they are serving the people and not themselves. But anyone running for office probably has ulterior motives, anyway, so perhaps we could have a computer which would randomly select social security numbers and let those individuals who are picked serve for two years at a time…but again, in a system which was completely transparent: no closed-door meetings…everything is streamed live to the interwebs. Everyone has to vote and everyone’s vote counts. National holidays for voting, etc.

    Human beings are amazing creatures and we are capable of so much more…there is a freaking rover on Mars right now (!) and while that is an amazing accomplishment, it also kind of sucks because we should be there in-person by now, and we could have been there years ago had we all decided collectively that it would be in everyone’s best interest to do so. Seriously. We have wasted SO much time! We could declare World Peace tomorrow, eliminate poverty, and cure every disease…and then Yellow Stone could erupt…or we could get hit by an asteroid…and all of our eggs will be lost to this one fragile basket. Selfish and petty and small. That is where our are right now as a species.

    Makes me think of that line from Waking Life: “Hell, the Greeks – three thousand years ago – were just as advanced as we are today. So what are these barriers that keep people from reaching anywhere near their real potential? The answer to that can be found in another question and that’s this: which is the most universal human characteristic…fear or laziness?” My guess is that it is both: we are fearful AND lazy. Not to mention…selfish.

    And yet, like a deranged masochist – and in spite of everything which our shameful and inglorious history has shown us – I continue to have hope that we could one day choose to break the cycle and advance forward together…collectively, equally, fairly, rationally, transparently, etc. It is a choice and I am sick and tired of being told that it is one which is unrealistic and/or unattainable.

    • So, naturally, aspiring for that delightful scenario requires people with guns to ‘enforce’ other people’s rights? And, of course, when one segment of society starts carrying guns to do that, nothing bad ever comes from that, right? Government is quickly becoming passé as a way to think about how humans *actually* organize themselves. Take a look at all of the unaccountability on Wall Street and you realize that government is just an illusion. If that’s the case, better to stay ahead of the curve and start fucking acting like it is an illusion in your own life. If I have to explain why, you probably aren’t paying attention to the issues that really matter.

    • BuzzCoastin | Nov 25, 2012 at 8:16 pm |

      > Wouldn’t a one-world government make the most sense, though?

      No it wouldn’t, for a lot of very good reasons:
      1) humans don’t need a government nanny, period
      2) cultural and language differences makes universal fairness & equality impossible
      3) the present economic system will give too much power to the rich, since the rich will control the new world government & are it’s biggest advocates
      4) BULLSHIT “the Greeks – three thousand years ago – were just as advanced as we are today.”
      (read some histories)
      5) gross corruption is always a byproduct of any government & governmental corruption is always proportionate to the square of the size of the government
      6) every empire (world government) eventually falls due to it’s size & the size of its corruption

      > It is a choice and I am sick and tired of being told that it is one which is unrealistic and/or unattainable.
      I feel the same way about having no government anywhere.

    • Localizer | Nov 26, 2012 at 2:44 pm |

      Great idea. Except, who gets to print the one-world currency? That’s right, your rulers.

      Who gets a say in a one-world government? Not you. Instead, the people who control the currency get the say.

      What we need is a reverse of this trend.

    • One day there will be a world government, one people but am afraid it will come at a terrible price.

Comments are closed.