Rotherham Debacle - Cui Bono?

("IS THAT SO?"  ....As my Irish Grandad would apparently say to my mother or her siblings when, as chidren, they would try to come up with some excuse for misbehaviour)

There has already been considerable discussion in the blogosphere concerning Rotherham Council's decision to remove three children from an apparently very successful foster placement, on the sole grounds that they did not like the foster parents' political affiliatons (which, whether you share them or not, could hardly be described as 'extreme', 'fanatical' or 'dangerous'). I refer you to the excellent posts (1) &  (2) by http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/damianthompson/, and by Lawrence England over on 'Bones'. Fr. Ray Blake has also posted on this topic.

I have only just got round to saying something about it now, as the initial news made me really quite angry.

I recall that Fr. Tim recently wrote a post entitled 'Determination to redefine marriage: cui bono?', and feel that a very similar question could be leveled at the Rotherham Debacle. What exactly was the aim of this action?

• To help the children? If so, why take them away from a place where they were happy and  settled (the foster parents have been described as 'exemplary' and the children were apparently calling them 'Mum' and 'Dad'), and subject them to upheaval and trauma?
• To help the council look good? That one failed miserably then - they have probably lost votes as a consequence, and were quickly denounced by their party leader.
• To discredit the UK Independence Party? They seem to have raised their profile significantly, and possibly handed them votes.
• To fulfil an egotistical political ideology, and ignorant prejudice? Quite possibly.

This also raises a number of other questions. For example, where would this go next? Would they remove children from a foster placement if the foster parents had strong religious beliefs (which of course might be the prime reason for their commitment to caring for children in the first place), in case they 'polluted' the children or 'conficted with their own belief system'? If the foster carers were a homosexual couple, heavily invoved in 'Gay Pride' activism, would the same thing happen? I wonder...