The way I feel about this issue is that a foster home should be selected on the basis of whether they will care for the child, provide a stable home, and provide a clean, safe and sanitised environment, possibly you can argue that financial solvency could be taken into account. It my view that should be it. I don't think political views should be taken into consideration whatsoever. I believe in total free speech, and that means tolerating views that we find repulsive. If you go down the road of not allowing willing and able foster parents to take children in because of their political views then why not take children off their natural parents if they're BNP supporters? Surely no-one would advocate this measure, yet in practical terms, what is the difference between the two? And who's going to decide what is or isn't an acceptable opinion or political stance. Well, it's the State themselves, it's the same State that we're constantly, and justifiably, criticising for removing children from stable, loving homes.
I also think it gives a complete lack of credence to a child's ability to make up their own mind about things. Yes, your parents have a huge influence over you, but does anyone here agree with their parents on every issue? I seriously doubt it. Does it automatically follow that if your parents have a certain political view that you'll follow it yourself? Of course not.
If two people who aren't a child's natural parents can give a child that's in a difficult situation shelter, warmth, comfort, food, a sense of belonging and love then I'm willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that they may have a higher opinion of Nick Griffin than I do (which wouldn't be hard). In fact, I couldn't give a shit what their political views are in this situation. This may seem an extreme view, but if you'd worked for the Child Support Agency, you may have ended up with a different perspective, as I have.
