Monday 26 November 2012

The other face of UKIP child care prejudice

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice

Can't be good for Nigel Farage as he is attacked Rotherham Social Services for removing three foster children from members of his party in one by election constituency when in another, Croydon North, his candidate says:

"If you couldn’t look after your child and you had to put them up for adoption would you honestly want your child to be adopted by a gay couple?
"Would you seriously want that or a heterosexual family? Which would be more healthy for the child?

"A caring loving home is a heterosexual or single family. I don’t believe (a gay couple) is healthy for a child."
So, do UKIP really care about the fact that children will be brought up in a stable environment? Or are they really letting their prejudices rise to the fore?

There is of course no evidence that a child adopted or raised by a same-sex couple is any worse off for a child. The child's health is not at risk (even though I suspect this is a misuse of the word healthy). Indeed there has been studies done which indicate that there may actually be some advantages for the children adopted by a same-sex couple over those with natural parents who are unable to provide the care most of us would expect.

Mind you here is that same candidate standing as an independent for Croydon's Mayoral election 4 years ago:

Update: Mr McKenzie has since gone further and called adoption by same-sex couples child abuse saying:
"I am having you adopted by two men who kiss regularly but don't worry about it' – that is abuse. It is a violation of a child's human rights because that child has no opportunity to grow up under normal circumstances."


  1. So this gentleman is a UKIP candidate?

    I love irony

  2. Still censoring.

    I love the irony of a "liberal" censoring any post that suggests the party is less than fully liberal.

  3. Neil in light of the recent case involving a certain senior Conservative I'm taken no chances on potentially libelous comments, you know my rules.

  4. How very precognitive of you to gave introduced your policy of censoring anybody who said anything against the LibDems long before the case you allege is the reason for it took place.

    Perhaps you might care to contact the person who wrote above

    "do UKIP really care about the fact that children will be brought up in a stable environment? Or are they really letting their prejudices rise to the fore?"

    since it clearly implies pregudice and dishonesty among UKIP memebres which, is not only non-factual but aomething which we have your word you fear being actionable.

    Your actions seem inexplicable if we assume you honestly mean what you say - note that I am not saying you don't but simply asking for an explanation for what seems to be the sole "LibDem" comment on something which any remotely liberal minded people should be deeply conncerned about.

  5. Neil I mentioned two situations about two difference UKIP utterances on the issue of adoption. It would also appear that the one where they were accusing the agency of taking children away from UKIP members was one where the children where placed in a temporary situation until longer-term more suitable placement could be found.

    I was posing a question about this because there was a disparacy about their two remarks.

    You initial comment did of course contain the usual unproven slurs that you start any argument with a Liberal Democrat about. I have warned you not to do so in the past and when you have your comments have remained up. I also as you can see through going through the comments accept comments that criticise the Lib Dems when put in a civil way.

  6. An impressive post, I just gave this to a colleague who is doing a little analysis on Childcare Seven Hillsand he is very happy and thanking me for finding it. But all thanks to you for writing in such simple words. Big thumb up for this blog post!