Multicultural Goings-on at Rotherham Social Services

Every so often something emerges into the public domain to confirm the institutionalised left-wing bias of Britain’s public services.  The publicising on Friday, 23rd November, that three children of East European migrants have been removed from their foster parents by the head of Rotherham’s children’s services is one such.

We may leave on one side for the moment the question why children of East European immigrants are being fostered in South Yorkshire rather than in their country of origin, and the fact that Rotherham children’s services are being asked to explain also why they have so spectacularly failed to protect a large number of under-age English girls from sexual exploitation by Pakistani-origin gangs over the last 10 years, as widely reported in the South Yorkshire and national press.  The explanation for this latest disaster offered by Joyce Thacker, the strategic director of children’s services for Rotherham council (Sunday Times 25th November) was to the effect that she has “to look after the children’s cultural and ethnic needs” and if the political party to which the foster parents belong “has a mantra for ending the promotion of multiculturalism, then I have to think about that”.

The political party referred to by Ms Thacker is the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) which has a policy of stopping all non-patrial[1] immigration for settlement for 5 years to allow the UK Border Agency to deal with the backlog of an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants in the country; and to follow this 5 year period by a vote of the British people on how much, if any, immigration they would permit thereafter.  In parallel with this, UKIP’s policy on education is evidently that all children, whether immigrant or native in Britain’s schools should focus on Britain’s culture, geography and history.

Polls have repeatedly indicated that both these policies are supported by the great majority of the British people.  As well as the poll results, a number of prominent politicians such as Prime Minister Cameron and functionaries like Trevor Phillip, the former head of the Equality Commission, have publicly declared that multiculturalism is a failure in Britain.  The curriculum policies of the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, also clearly support this proposition.

So why then is the head of Rotherham children’s services declaring in effect that not only is she personally supportive of the multicultural agenda, but evidently is operating as if this highly controversial policy was explicitly sanctioned by the British people through their elected representatives when it clearly is not?

The multicultural view

This is that (1) immigrants need to be reminded of their racial (i.e. ethnic) and national origins at all times, (2) the state should provide support to their learning and speaking the languages of their national origins, even for those who being born in the United Kingdom have no natural connection with their parents’ country except by reason of their race, and (3) the educational curriculum in state schools, especially in the teaching of history and geography, should reflect immigrants’ countries of origin, at least as much as those of Britain.  That this is an essentially racist policy and hugely discriminating against native British children and contrary to the wishes of their parents and grandparents, whose country Britain actually is, counts not a jot with the multiculturalists.  The result of their policy, if persisted with, will be to break up England particularly, into a congeries of culturally separate islands of different ethnic groups.

How many people actually support multiculturalism?

First there are those largely drawn from immigrant groups themselves whose jobs depend on it.  These include firms of lawyers specialising in human rights legislation as applied in the multicultural context, a vast range of community support activities for specific immigrant groups, and translators and interpreters.  These are employed to translate everything from official leaflets and public notices into a huge list of immigrant languages and to interpret at doctors’ surgeries, hospitals, the courts, at police stations and council offices.  All these activities are paid for by the taxpayer and would not exist but for official support of multiculturalism in the Home Office and local councils.  As it is they positively encourage people not to make the effort to learn English and thereby handicap efforts to integrate them into the British nation (Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities, and Theresa May, Home Secretary, please note).

Second as with the supporters of so many anti-nation agendas, supporters of multiculturalism among the native population are clustered in key areas of the public sector – the social services and education, especially.  The number of university-educated people who give tacit perhaps unthinking support is however much more extensive, for the following reason: multiculturalism is essentially a product of political egalitarianism which in various forms has become the received world view of supporters of liberal-socialist politics.  This world-view has dominated Western politics and universities since the end of the First World War.  The widely detested Human Rights Act of 1998 and Britain’s continued membership of the European Union in the teeth of every material fact showing it to be against the interests and inclinations of the British people are two other products of this world-view.

The League of Nations and the European Convention of Human Rights

In the 1920s and 30s faith in the League of Nations as a guarantor of the world’s freedoms and Britain’s security was the received view of the mainstream British political parties, “educated” opinion generally, the arts and most of the media.  The Covenant of the League was an article of faith.  Today the same sections of British society repose the same faith in the European Convention of Human Rights as a guarantor of European freedoms and security.  Then as now, the British people were told Britain had to obey the dictates of a council made up of around 50 other countries[2] because “we had signed a treaty of accession and therefor had to obey the rules”.  The result then, as now, was actually to undermine Britain’s freedoms, security and national identity.

[1]  Under the 1981 Nationality Act, Patrials are those with parents born in the United Kingdom, but who were themselves born in another country, and those who have other historic links with Britain.

[2]  Today there are 47 members of the Council of Europe to which the European Court of Human Rights responds.  Membership includes all EU countries, ex-soviet countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and micro-states like Andorra and Liechtenstein.

Top| Home

One Response to “Multicultural Goings-on at Rotherham Social Services”

  1. Ageing Albion says:

    Pose the question in the opposite direction: suppose the children’s biological parents had been members of the National Front, or, less dramatically, any form of ‘right wing’ party – would this have led to the same principle by the authority? Of course not.

    Local authorities have for years pursued an explicit race-based policy when placing children, thus implicitly condemning mixed-race families.

    Perhaps they might have considered the black presenter on the Antiques Roadshow – brought up by white parents and with clearly an English culture. Instead of being offered as a model citizen no doubt he would be abused for not representing some form of ‘black culture’ …

    The irony is that the left wing mafia like to call themselves ‘liberal’, when they will never tolerate any form of dissent …

    Top| Home

Leave a Reply

Top| Home