The decision, as reported on the BBC News website, to remove three children from the care of a foster couple in Rotherham because the foster parents are members of UKIP stretches credibility.
I can't help but feel there are other elements of this story which have not yet come to light and may yet put Rotherham Council's decision into some form of perspective.
I'm no fan of UKIP - I believe the party to be profoundly naive, misleading and wrong on Europe and Britian's membership of the EU. Behind this facade of extreme Euroscepticism, however, lies a much more unpalatable set of policies bordering on social authoritarianism.
It's clear that UKIP see immigration as a problem and would want to severely restrict migration in to the country which they cannot achieve while still part of the EU. Yes, they support proportional representation but other aspects of their social policy (such as their stance on gay marriage) seem to pander to the worst excesses of social reaction and, as a social liberal, I would resist this.
All of that said, I would emphatically NOT consider UKIP a "racist" party - that's more for the odious BNP - and removing three children on the basis that the Council considers UKIP "racist" is plain wrong.
This is, of course, when all is said and done, a chip-wrapper story but it's got a few people on politicalbetting.com very excited and wound-up (I have to say most of these are the same old saddos who post on the site every day and simply repeat their tired worn-out opinions on anything and everything but that's free speech for you).
For all that UKIP might poll 8-10% at the next election (which I consider very unlikely), they aren't likely to win any Parliamentary seats and all they may succeed in doing, as some Conservatives see it, is to hand the keys of No.10 back to Labour.