Rotherham's narrow agenda
What has happened in Rotherham is a policy of indoctrination, and as with all indoctrination, a debauched, newspeak language is used to justify it
Given the near unanimity of condemnation over the Rotherham Stalinist political operation to remove three children from loving foster parents, how does one even begin to explain the existence of such a character as Joyce Thacker, the left-wing social worker at the heart of the scandal?
Against all the public outrage and opposition, Ms Thacker has stood her ground and attempted to defend her actions. In a democracy, how can that be?
How can someone in an important position of power (Ms Thacker is director of children and young people’s services in Rotherham) be so alienated from the views of ordinary decent people?
One answer to this question is to be found in George Orwell’s essay, England your England, where he speaks of a particular lefty type (what today we would call a Guardianista) as occupying “a sort of island of dissident thought” within the wider community and of “their severance from the common culture of the country.”
And it’s true. Bien pensant Guardianista types are a small deracinated group within the wider society – but they wield phenomenal power throughout state bureaucracies such as education and the social services. They are often people with a determined agenda to change society without the knowledge or consent of the wider community.
And that seems to be a fundamental point about the Rotherham social worker Joyce Thacker. This woman has the power almost of a commissar in Soviet Russia and, like the Soviet commissar, has a narrow, tendentious political agenda entirely at odds with the values and beliefs of ordinary people.
No doubt Ms Thacker passionately believes in her cause. But what exactly is that cause? She says she authorised the removal of the three children because the foster parents supported UKIP, a legitimate and perfectly democratic political party that is critical of multiculturalism and advocates strict limits to immigration.
But what’s wrong with opposition to multiculturalism? All the mainstream political parties now accept that multiculturalism has been not just a failure, but a dangerous failure in that it promotes ghettoised cultures. David Cameron and Angela Merkel have both made public statements condemning multiculturalism. So where does that leave Ms Thacker and Rotherham council?
Also, the vast majority of the British people want limits to immigration. All the mainstream political parties have moved much closer to the UKIP position on this issue. So where’s the problem for Joyce Thacker and Rotherham council?
I suspect it’s that narrow political agenda again. It certainly looks like Orwell was right. These people really are severed from the common culture of the country.
But even if we take Ms Thacker’s position on adoption at face value – that the ‘ethnic values’ of an adopted child should be protected – what would that imply?
It would imply that the adoptive children of white British parents should be placed only with white British foster parents who believe in restricted immigration and an end to multiculturalism – because that is what the vast majority of white British people believe.
Somehow, however, I doubt if Ms Thacker and Rotherham council would be likely to respect such mainstream conservative values. Indeed, it seems that it is precisely such values that Rotherham council is trying to indoctrinate children against.
What has happened in Rotherham is a policy of indoctrination, and as with all indoctrination, a debauched, newspeak language is used to justify it.
Rotherham council claimed that the three children were removed from a loving foster family to “protect their cultural and ethnic needs”. But what does that phrase mean? These are highly subjective matters, but we can be quite certain that “cultural and ethnic needs” is newspeak for “the political views of Ms Thacker.”
It’s good news for democracy that the Daily Telegraph exposed what Rotherham council were up to. But as Ms Thacker’s intransigence on the issue shows, exposure may not be enough to put an end to the leftist ideology rampant in social services.
=== TWITTER BOX ===
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.