sigh

just because you dont agree does not mean you acuse him of trolling just to try and make your position seem the right one

also its patronising in the extreme

*sigh*

I'm not accusing him of trolling because I disagree (notice I haven't posted my real opinion in this thread at all until this point?), I did so because his post was not so discreetly aimed at me:

He used the term 'loony left' three times, applying it incorrectly in the process, and then proceeded to call me 'petty' and 'deluded'. So yeah, I think I'll call it out...but thanks for your input :thumbs:

5,000 'child' migrants are adults: Half of those challenged over their age in the past decade found to be over 18

Home Office figures revealed 11,121 disputes over ages of child refugees
In the last decade, almost 45 per cent have been found to be over 18
Their treatment as children would have cost the taxpayer millions a year


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4Now5cpYZ

fair comment

I don't know why we are so accepting of this, families with young vulnerable children are being pushed aside to give places to young men who are already in a safe country, you couldn't make this **** up I've lost all confidence in the agencies dealing with this, it seems like they are just box ticking for a easy life, fill our agreed quota with any one who vaguely fits the term refugee, then go home and put their feet up, it's just another example of jobs worths

Would they actually have proof of age though? Curiosity here as I did think yeah why don't we do that to start with, but then figured they are unlikely to have birth certificates and that so besides this we could check their ages by what? Dental checks, bone density and such?

Anyway as I said earlier I don't blame them and their families for lying. But it does mean less real children get in at the same time.

To be quite honest, I think we should be 'letting people in' who are in the refugee camps bordering war torn places. As those people stuck there are more likely to be vulnerable than those who have managed to make the journey to France :shrug:

Horrible horrible situation either way though. I am so conflicted on this its unreal..it hurts my head

These should be priority for sure

My personal annoyance with the term 'loony left' is because it comes across as a childish insult, and the SD section can be ridiculous and off putting enough as it is sometimes to people who want to engage in a sensible debate without stuff like that. And claiming that if people take it as the insult it's clearly intended to be, then they mustn't care very much about death/bankruptcy etc... it's a logic that's lost on me sorry... using a term to try and insult people, then using their offence as a way of insulting them further. There's an irony in calling such people 'petty'... this section is honestly tiresome sometimes. (I know this post has nothing to add to the discussion so I'm sorry, but that post did kind of invite a remark on it by making such a presumption.)

The British government have always said they are happy to take genuine refugees directly from the refugee camps bordering the war torn areas, provided their situation is verified.

Quite honestly, saying people face war ravage in France is just ridiculous. They are safe there, no immediate threat to their safety. Those people in the camps at Calais are there because they are illegals and have nowhere else to go. So, trying to make them a sympathy case, is just such a stretch, and does detract from those in genuine suffering in the war torn areas.

...so why don't we? Why take in so many from Calais?

This tends to be an unpopular opinion but I realized pretty recently that most of those 'stuck' in Calais are economic migrants rather than people who are destitute and in need of help. Now, I see nothing wrong in wanting more cash or whatever for your family..or preferring the UK because its more 'tolerant' or for our NHS or whatever, but at this moment I think its a bit crap to be prioritizing people like this over those genuinely fearing for their lives but unable leave the camps bordering Syria and the likes..you know, those who actually are very vulnerable..so much so they haven't been able to travel thousands of miles and pass through many safe countries?

we do take them from the refugee camps next to Syria, we have been doing it and are still doing it .... I'm getting really angry and frustrated at people classifying those in Calais the same ... its just sooooooo wrong on so many levels.

Yeah, I thought of them as the same until very recently and it quite annoys me too now seeing other people with that opinion :laugh:

the ones in calais seem to be Afghans?

i think its a general assortment, the majority of which, if not all, are not considered refugees at all. The country they come from has to be classified accordingly and Afghanistan certainly isn't

Agencies were running around the camp in Calais to round up the vulnerable "children" before it was bulldozed, these "children" all had families in the UK and this is how it was sold to the public, I would like to see a breakdown of the 300 that were rescued and the percentages of age and how many families etc

Last week, the home secretary, Amber Rudd, told MPs the French authorities had agreed to verify a list of 387 child refugees with a legal right to come to the UK drawn up by Citizens UK. “Once we have that official list we will move quickly within days and remove very quickly those children,” she said.

Earlier on Monday, Rowan Williams said the safety of up to 400 unaccompanied children stranded in the Calais refugee camp was being put at risk by the government’s “foot-dragging”. The former archbishop of Canterbury said the time was short for the remainder because of the imminent dismantling of the site.


Charity takes legal action against Home Office over child refugees
Read more
He described the refugee children as “extraordinarily vulnerable” who were trapped in the “chaos of the camp and the chaos of the demolition”. Williams called on the government to expedite the cases of up to 400 children remaining in Calais. “I’m not sure why there is such foot-dragging,” he said at Croydon Minster. “The clock is ticking, the likelihood is the Calais camp will be demolished in the next 10 days.”

The Home Office said the group of 14 who arrived on Monday were among about 100 to be resettled in the UK. They came from countries including Syria, Afghanistan and Kuwait’s stateless Bidoon community. The department confirmed that the children, aged 14-17, were transferred on Monday morning. They will be assessed and screened and may be cared for in specialist accommodation before being reunited with their relatives.

However, Tina Brocklebank, a volunteer who has been conducting refugee counts with the charity L’Auberge des Migrants, said the most vulnerable children in Calais could miss out on being helped amid what she called a confusing census carried out by another charity, France Terre d’Asile
She said: “FTDA registered a very small number of children on Friday and then shut the gate and told everyone to come back on Monday. It’s a despicable way to build up hopes, withhold and keep changing information and confuse everybody. We are concerned that buses may at some point arrive for the children, and the ypushy ones will get on while the most vulnerable ones will still be hiding in their shelters and tents – either because they don’t know what’s going on or will be too scared to get on a bus.”

The French interior minister has warned of a damaging blame game between his country and the UK over the Calais refugee crisis, with accusations of selfishness and inhumanity preventing action being taken to support vulnerable individuals.

Writing in the Guardian, Bernard Cazeneuve said there had been a litany of misunderstandings between the two countries but added that there was now an urgent need for a common outlook to tackle a situation “everyone agrees is a disaster”.



Not to be too cynical about it but money changing hands for a place on the bus cannot be dismissed either

The last comprehensive 'count' of the camp at Calais, was carried out by the 'Help Refugees' and 'L'Auberge Des Migrants' organisations in February 2016.

After a "thorough and methodical census of the entire camp" the findings were: .

5497 Total Residents

182 Family Units

205 Women

651 Children of which 423 are unaccompanied.

The census did not include "government run facilities including Jules Ferry (for women and children) and the shipping containers which hold 1500 and have only 300 spaces left"

This count cannot be hailed as 'anti-immigrant', 'xenophobic', 'racist' propaganda - in light of the two pro-refugee organisations responsible for carrying it out, but the findings make a total NONSENSE of all those who haved always REFUTED claims that these 'refugees' are mainly MEN.

And BOTS is 1,000% correct in his assertion that these are NOT refugees.

Why the hell are charities getting involved this should be dealt with by border control?

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

David Simmonds, chairman of the LGA’s asylum, refugee and migration task group, said: “The Home Office are saying that they have carried out checks that family members exist but in fact local authorities are being asked to check out the relatives when the children arrive.

“Even if the child has named a relative here, they could be lying or the relative could be lying about their ability to look after them. They might say they have a spare bedroom but then it turns out that uncle is actually sharing a bedroom with five other people above a shop.

“If they can’t look after the children they will go back into the system as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

“The local authority then becomes responsible for their care, accommodation and education until the age of 25, under the Leaving Care Act. That means the local authority also has to pay their university fees in full, because as foreigners they aren’t entitled to student loans.”

Mr Simmonds said the situation was placing a huge financial burden on local authorities at ports of entry, such as Hillingdon, where he sits as a councillor, and which includes Heathrow.

He said: “For a long, long time councils at ports of entry have been expressing concern because of the numbers of cases where age assessments have been disputed. Ministers just didn’t seem to want to engage.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nder-fire-for/

The Jungle camp is where the migrants went who didn't claim asylum. If they had claimed it in France or one of the other countries they'd passed through, they wouldn't have to be in the Jungle.

So if they won't claim asylum then they're probably not refugees.

Reports this morning that there are still unaccompanied children as young as 8 in the camp yet we are ferrying grown men across :bored:

Total incompetence.The children should be the priority.Whoever is in charge should be going round the camp and finding the children.It looks like they can't be arsed and are just letting on anyone who turns up first leaving the most vulnerable behind.

It's on the news right now live footage. All men, not a single child or girl in sight. :shrug: