Christian girl put into foster care with non-English speaking Muslim family

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Since when is the Daily Mail a trusted source? It has not been more than a tabloid in long form for an age!

There are no print media or major publishers anywhere that can be trusted, everyone is spinning some sort of line, the truth is unpopular, because it is complicated, nuanced, and incapable of being consumed in the space of time and the number of column inches that people prefer to absorb data in.

So, what do we do then? Sit on our hands with our thumbs up our arses? Or do we just make the best of what is available, and rely on the fact that despite the worst excesses of the print media in all cases and quarters, that the only way to come to a reasonable conclusion is to absorb all of it and parse the truth by combining all that we learn from all sources, seeing where the lies contrast themselves against the skin of reality most starkly, and ignoring all but the solid elements in every byte of data available at the time?

This whole thing is amade up piece of crap and heres why-

1) According to court documents, it was the police not the local authority (as stated by the tabloids) who decided the child should be put 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.

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

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

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

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


[url=https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/how-the-press-lied-about-the-little-girl-staying-with-muslim-foster-parents-here-are-the-facts/]LINK[/u rl]

a reply to: UltraMind

Thanks for the actual facts. Maybe we can get this thread moved to LOL?

a reply to: UltraMind

"There was no culturally matched foster placement available at the time"?... Really?... So, what "this court" document seems to be saying is that there are more Muslims in the UK than Christian families?... REALLY?... WTH... Since when has the UK have had more Muslims than Christian families? This sounds like a BS made up story just so that the "politically correct police" could show everyone"look, we are puting a Christian Girl with Muslims, we don't hate Muslims"...

Supposedly as of 2011 there were 33.2 million people in England who are Christian. That means 59.3% of the population are/were Christian. Also according to that same report the amount of Muslims in 2001 was 4.8 percent.
As far as i know Christian families still outnumber the amount of non-Christian families, and people of other religions in England. So how in the heck can these court documents claim that "there was no culturally matched foster placement available at the time"?...

Not to mention, I have noticed how the members who want to claim the op is a made up article, are ignoring what the girl was reporting, which includes the fact that the girl said the Muslim family took her crucifix necklace, and she was stressed about it.

...
The reports state that the supervisor heard the girl, who at times was “very distressed”, claiming that the foster carer removed her necklace with a crucifix on it. The paper reported that she was a “white Christian child” who had been placed with two Muslim households in London over the past six months.
...

www.theguardian.com...

Yet as we see above we have members trying to put this article in the LOL section...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Since when is the Daily Mail a trusted source? It has not been more than a tabloid in long form for an age!
...

The op posted an article from the Telegraph, not the "Daily Mail". You were the one pointing to the mirror as if it was a trusted news source while at the same time ignoring what your other article reported about the girl's statements about the Muslim family removing her crucifix necklace".

Not to mention that "the so called court documents" seems to be claiming that there was no culturally matched foster placement available at the time, despite the fact that there are still more Christians in the UK than Muslims which would point to the fact that there should be more Christian families who are willing to take care of a Christian girl.

A couple of things.

The girl said, "please don't send me back, they don't speak english." I can almost guarantee that they speak english, just not around the household.

Also, how can a 5 year old be a Christian?

Finally, what is it with the push to 'diversify' households? Foster kids already have it bad enough going in and out of these homes. Why would you not adopt her to a similar family and avoid further traumatization?

a reply to: ventian

Why would you not adopt her to a similar family and avoid further traumatization?

Its likely there were no other available families. Better she be sent to the family in question than say a half way house.

Two different set of facts is exactly what you expect in the court. One side is obviously disabled so we won't see a whole picture anytime soon.
Someone decided to make the issue public to protect the kid's future with incomplete informations.
It doesn't make it a hoax or a non-issue

I remember myself at that age. It's a conscious, susceptible, personality forming age.

a reply to: Phonixfromtheashes

white Christian girl

and was not allowed to eat carbonara because it contained bacon.

Both Jewish and Islamic people adhere to the old testament teaching of not eating pork. Most Christians ignore this teaching.
My personal opinion and teaching is that it is far better to avoid eating meat all together. The most pious act is not killing. Thus not eating flesh.

Below Bible verses show the reason why the family forbid the girl do this:

Below verses are from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament.

Rules About Eating Meat

11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Tell the Israelites: These are the animals you can eat: 3 If an animal has hooves that are split into two parts, and if that animal also chews the cud, then you may eat the meat from that animal.

4-6 “Some animals chew the cud, but they don’t have split hooves. Don’t eat these animals. Camels, rock badgers, and rabbits are like that, so they are unclean for you. 7 Other animals have hooves that are split into two parts, but they don’t chew the cud. Don’t eat these animals. Pigs are like that, so they are unclean for you. 8 Don’t eat the meat from these animals. Don’t even touch their dead bodies! They are unclean for you.
Rules About Sea Food

9 “You may eat everything that lives in the sea or in a river that has fins and scales. 10-11 But you must not eat anything that lives in the sea or in a river and does not have fins and scales. Just the thought of eating such a creature should make you sick. This will never change. So don’t ever eat meat from anything like that. Don’t even touch its dead body! 12 It is a sickening thought for you to touch anything that lives in the water and does not have fins and scales.
Birds That Must Not Be Eaten

13 “You must also treat some birds as things that are wrong to eat. Stay away from them. It is a sickening thought for you to eat any of these birds: eagles, vultures, buzzards, 14 kites, all kinds of falcons, 15 all kinds of black birds, 16 ostriches, nighthawks, sea gulls, all kinds of hawks, 17 owls, cormorants, great owls, 18 water hens, pelicans, carrion vultures, 19 storks, all kinds of herons, hippos, and bats.
Rules About Eating Insects

20 “Don’t eat insects that have wings and crawl.[a] Even the thought of eating them should make you sick! 21 But you may eat insects if they have legs with joints above their feet so that they can jump. 22 You may also eat all kinds of locusts, all kinds of winged locusts, all kinds of crickets, and all kinds of grasshoppers.

23 “But stay away from all the other insects that have wings and crawl. 24 They will make you unclean. If you touch the dead bodies of these insects, you will become unclean until evening. 25 If you pick up one of these dead insects, you must wash your clothes. You will be unclean until evening.
More Rules About Animals

26-27 “Some animals have split hooves, but the hooves don’t make exactly two parts. Some animals don’t chew the cud. Some animals don’t have hooves—they walk on their paws. All these animals are unclean for you. If you touch them, you will become unclean until evening. 28 If you pick up the dead bodies of these unclean animals, you must wash your clothes. You will be unclean until evening. These animals are unclean for you.
Rules About Crawling Animals

29 “These small animals are unclean for you: moles, mice, all kinds of great lizards, 30 geckos, crocodiles, lizards, sand reptiles, and chameleons. 31 Whoever touches their dead bodies will be unclean until evening.
Rules About Unclean Animals

32 “If any of these unclean animals dies and falls on something, that thing will become unclean. It might be something made from wood, cloth, leather, or sackcloth. Whatever it is or is used for, it must be washed with water. It will be unclean until evening. Then it will become clean again. 33 If any of these unclean animals dies and falls into a clay dish, anything in the dish will become unclean. And you must break the dish. 34 If water from the unclean clay dish touches any food, that food will become unclean. Any drink in the unclean dish will become unclean. 35 If any part of a dead, unclean animal falls on something, that thing is unclean. It may be a clay oven or a clay baking pan. It must be broken into pieces. These things will remain unclean. They will always be unclean for you.

36 “A spring or a well that collects water will remain clean, but anyone who touches the dead bodies of any unclean animal in that water will become unclean. 37 If any part of a dead, unclean animal falls on seed that is to be planted, that seed is still clean. 38 But if you put water on some seed and if any part of a dead, unclean animal falls on those seeds, they are unclean for you.

39 “Also, if an animal which you use for food dies, whoever touches its dead body will be unclean until evening. 40 If you eat meat from this animal’s body, you must wash your clothes. You will be unclean until evening. If you pick up the dead body of the animal, you must wash your clothes. You will be unclean until evening.

41 “You must treat all the crawling animals that live on the dirt as disgusting things that you must not eat. 42 You must not eat any of the reptiles that crawl on their bellies or that walk on all four feet or that have many feet. Don’t eat these animals! 43 Don’t let them make you filthy.[c] You must not become unclean, 44 because I am the Lord your God. I am holy, so you should keep yourselves holy. Don’t make yourselves unclean with these crawling things. 45 I, the Lord, brought you out of Egypt so that you could be my special people and I could be your God. I am holy, so you must be holy too.”

46 These are the rules about all the tame animals, birds, all the animals in the sea, and all the animals that crawl on the ground. 47 These rules will help the people know which animals are unclean and which animals they are allowed to eat and which ones they cannot eat.
Footnotes:

Leviticus 11:20 crawl Literally, “walk on four feet.” Also in verse 23.
Leviticus 11:26 paws The soft feet with claws on certain animals.
Leviticus 11:43 filthy Or “hated.” Not pure or not acceptable to God for worship.

If you are in someones home and they are providing care for you, it would be a small concession to pay to give up pork while they are there. Especially if you are a Christian.
As for her wearing a cross. I understand the reasons behind this request. But I feel it is necessary for Muslim people to exercise more tolerance in regards to this. Whether judged as wrong or right, wearing a cross is not done with any ill intent.

All that being said I feel this is just more hyped up media sensationalism with the ultimate purpose of driving a wedges of division between religious groups. This being part of a wider agenda to keep enmity between different groups in society. And cause societal division. Why else would they put "White Christian Girl"? Her color is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
yep...so many positive qualities from burqa and niqab wearing foster mother.

Sky is the limit for the child...

Hey man, if you're racist because you're afraid of a headscarf then who am I to stop you. Such strange things for grown men to be terrified of nowadays.

Why is disliking, or fearing, headscarves and/or People who wear them, racist?