A little white Christian girl is taken from her London home and fostered by a niqab-wearing Muslim mother who doesn’t speak English. The cross around this five-year-old’s neck is supposedly snatched away and she is denied her favourite food, spaghetti carbonara, because it contains bacon. The clear and inflammatory inference of the Times’s exclusive story this week was that a child’s identity was being heinously erased while a council unwilling to confront religious intolerance – at least, when perpetrated by Muslims – stood back and let it happen.
True, the paper glossed suspiciously quickly over why the child was taken from the birth family in the first place. But the story was apparently based on leaked official reports, and written by the same fine reporter who meticulously exposed the scandal of child-grooming gangs across Britain. MPs demanded something be done. Commentators piled in. The far right had a field day. Finally, the Times reported that a judge had intervened and sent the little girl to live with her grandmother, for all the world as if its reporting had saved the day. And it is only thanks to that judge’s published ruling that we now know how much of this was either grossly misleading or plain untrue.
[TOP RATED COMMENT 531 votes] Indeed Andrew Norfolk of the Times exposed the grooming gangs whilst the gruaniard jurnos and the labour council refused to believe these girls were being systematically raped due to political correctness.
[2ND 486] However the judge in the case praised the reporting by The Times, and the Guardian's standards have been called into question this week.
[3RD 449] The families will be OK because the law will protect their identity.
To suggest the story has been cooked up by Islamaphobes is typical Guardian nonsense. As a guy from the fostering agency pointed out on TV, Foster families have to speak English. But do all choose to speak English at home? The child claimed not, in the case of her foster family.
It is an area of legitimate concern.
[4TH 399] There's a bit of sleight of hand going on here. There were two foster families weren't there.
Whatever, if the writer can't see the issue with placing this child with heavily practising Muslim households (IE veil wearing) then there's little point discussing it.
[5TH 387] "True, the paper glossed suspiciously quickly over why the child was taken from the birth family in the first place."
That's a terrible bit of 'whataboutery":
1) They might have glossed over it because the details would lead to the child being identified.
2) The reason for fostering has absolutely nothing to do with the standard of care the fosters provide.
[6TH 368] Considering [the Guardian] provides no sources at all, why exactly should I believe this article instead of the one from Times? Andrew Norfolk at least is an actual journalist who goes out and finds stories instead of columnist who just recycles others' work into lightweight 'outrage for masses' pieces.
[7TH 327] "the last thing she needs is to become a pawn in a bigger political game." But everything is political. Like Grenfell. All political activists exploit whatever they can to push their agenda, even as they hypocritically accuse their enemies of it.
[8TH 298] The indigenous, largely white population had multiculturalism imposed by the Labour Party in a cynical attempt to increase their constituency. It is a matter a record.
Since then they have watched the liberal elite and its followers bend over backwards to avoid confronting any difficulties, to the extent that victims of systematic child abuse are not believed and even threatened with prosecution. A Labour politician was forced to resign for her clumsy phrasing of the problem.
There are aspects of militant, and in fact orthodox Islam, which are inconsistent with the values of this county in the current age.
Is it any wonder that people seize upon the latest development as being indicative of a growing Muslim/Islamic hegemony? Large segments of the population feel under threat and powerless. [Guardian Cif] Read more
