Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:34 pm

David Cameron is reportedly considering plans to admit several thousand migrant children into the UK within weeks, as pressure continues to mount on the government to provide greater assistant to young people who have fled their war-torn homelands. Downing Street said ministers were looking at calls from charities for the UK to admit at least 3,000 unaccompanied young people who have arrived in Europe from countries including Syria and Afghanistan, and who are at serious risk of falling prey to people traffickers, the Guardian reported.

The newspaper said the gesture would be in addition to the 20,000 refugees the UK has already agreed to accept by 2020.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/24/david-cameron-considering-admitting-3000-children-into-uk_n_9063026.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

by eddie Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:22 pm

Where are the children's parents?

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:27 pm

eddie wrote:Where are the children's parents?

????

No idea Eddie, which if they are on their own is appalling.
Happy if he does this as he should, though again it begs the question why is France not doing so?
If they are with their parents, it will be devastating to separate them

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:04 pm

Eddie... firstly... what is wrong with them being looked after by the countries they are currently in!?

Secondly... What's the betting that as soon as any are let in here... their parents suddenly 'appear' and demand to be let in too so as to be 'reunited' with their lost loved ones!!!???

Thirdly... it is well known that many adults pretend to be 15-16 etc so as to be considered 'vulnerable children' and get special consideration!!!

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:10 pm

Oh for goodness sake

These are children Tommy, for once allow some human compassion.

All you are doing is making speculative guesses

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:15 pm

Bullshit!!!

Answer my points!!!

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:21 pm

You never made any point but speculation

Evidence, not guesses

Try again and wash your potty mouthy out

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:27 pm

Whilst you are at it Tommy, rule out all the children who have been made Orphans by the wars?
As that will rule out most of your points
We have a duty to help children, that answers your first question, because we are not barbaric
As to ages, I am not going to quibble over a couple of years if its evident they look young

Lets start with that

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:37 pm

The countries they are already in have the duty to look after them!!!

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:40 pm

They are already taking in people, hence why there is quotas to make fair to all countries

Did you not understand that simple fact?

Its called doing are bit

So you could not answer my questions it seems

Oh well

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:29 pm

Still no answers to my points then...

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:34 pm

Yes i am waiting Tommy, you always avoid answering so I have to take the view you have no idea how many are orphans

I answered your questions, they were quite lame actually
Again this country is signed up to take in refugees by law
As there is an influx, each has to play their part and for someone to argue against children being let in shows how much they really must hate to deny innocent children, who clearly are victims of war , conflict and extremism

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:00 pm

The article says 3000 'young people' who have already arrived in Europe...

They should be looked after by the countries they are already in!!!

Or be looked after by one of the safe countries that they previously came through!!!

You know as well as I do that as soon as we let some of these 'unaccompanied "chikdren"' in... we will see their parents popping up demanding to be let in too!!!

As well as the fact that many will be adults who have lied about their ages!!!

Merkel said they were all welcome in Germany so let her deal with them...

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The article says 3000 'young people' who have already arrived in Europe...
And?
They should be looked after by the countries they are already in!!!
You do not get to decide and thank goodness for that, it does not matter who looks after tham as long as someone does and at present nobody is, or do you not care for vulnerable children Tommy?
Or be looked after by one of the safe countries that they previously came through!!!
You just said the same above where already nop matter how many times you repeat the same gibberish, every country has to pull their weight
You know as well as I do that as soon as we let some of these 'unaccompanied "chikdren"' in... we will see their parents popping up demanding to be let in too!!!
I do not care if later their parents come to get them or stay with them or return, as they need their parents to be reunited with them, where it is some single adult men that are the present issue but it speaks volumes why they are on their own. That clearly they are either orphans, or sent by their parents to send them to safety, where they maybe fighting for their lives, but I doubt that crossed your mind, only an insidious person would make such assertions based on no evidence but a hate they have
As well as the fact that many will be adults who have lied about their ages!!!
Based on no evidence, and again an insidious disposition
Merkel said they were all welcome in Germany so let her deal with them...

Well you do not own this country or get to decide, so best you suck it up bucko, as the needds of children who are vulnerable outweigh any need you have

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:23 pm

No matter what ever claptrap you come out with it speaks volumes you would argue against helping innocent vunerable children Tommy

Laters

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:42 pm

Were safe in Turkey... and safe in any other eu country they might be in!!

It is you who is making things up Dodge! !!

They should be looked after by the authorities of the countries they are already in!!!

And as to your last sentence...

'the needs of children who are vulnerable outweigh any [others] need...'

Funny you say this to me now!!!

As I was arguing this point about vulnerable children needing a mother and a father when being given up for adoption and how it was wrong to ignore this in favour of the sensitivities of a couple of homosexuals!!!

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:53 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Were safe in Turkey... and safe in any other eu country they might be in!!
Really? So you are again telling people were you believe they should feel safe, even though they may not feel safe at all, which is why you are so far removed understanding anything where again its not up to you decide where people feel safe. Also Turkey has over 2 million refugees already, dwarfing anything the UK has to cope with
It is you who is making things up Dodge! !!
Really? As you are unable to show otherwse
They should be looked after by the authorities of the countries they are already in!!!
Who says they feel safe there? Again you are making an absurd argument based off your perception of not even understanding what its like to be in a war zone. In their shoes i would want to be as far away as possible and being that Turkey has had a spate of terrorist attacks, its not the safest at the moment again showing how far you fail to understand
And as to your last sentence...
'the needs of children who are vulnerable outweigh any [others] need...'nny you say this to me now!!!
As I was arguing this point about vulnerable children needing a mother and a father when being given up for adoption and how it was wrong to ignore this in favour of the sensitivities of a couple of homosexuals!!!

Again your claim to who they will be better off with is based on sheer ignorance and bigotry, as study after study shows children are just as well off if not better with adopted homosexual parents. So children are in no different a position with either heterosexual homosexual parents.
Not only that you are insulting just about every single parent out there.
So you care for children and then show the worst double standards to deny vulnerable children and based denying them off a falsehood

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:58 pm

As I say Tommy insidious to argue against vulnerable innocent children being let into the country.

Right I have no more time to waste trying to get you to see sense

Night

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:10 pm

If Turkey is safe enough for holidaymakers then it is safe enough for the "children" in question... unless of course you are suggesting otherwise...!?

And now you claim that adoptive children are better off with a couple of homosexuals than with natural parents!!!

This is an insult to all parents!!!

As well as being total bullshit!!!

Maybe we should let it be known that all 'unaccompanied refugee children' will be adopted out to homosexual couples...!!!???

Why not if they are better off...!!!???

Bet the number of claims suddenly disappear... as quick as the 'missing' parents suddenly reappear!!!

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:05 am

Tommy Monk wrote:If Turkey is safe enough for holidaymakers then it is safe enough for the "children" in question... unless of course you are suggesting otherwise...!? And now you claim that adoptive children are better off with a couple of homosexuals than with natural parents!!!
This is an insult to all parents!!! Is well as being total bullshit!!! Maybe we should let it be known that all 'unaccompanied refugee children' will be adopted out to homosexual couples...!!!??? Why not if they are better off...!!!???Bet the number of claims suddenly disappear... as quick as the 'missing' parents suddenly reappear!!!

I still see you are regurgitating the same drivel
So explain to me how a homosexual will feel staying in Turkey, fleeing persecution, because of his sexuality?
Or a Christian, or as Kurd, or a Yazidi etc because of their faith? Or a woman because of her gender? You see your thought process is that of a child, where you think because Turkey is the natural escape route, they should bare all the burden of refugees, when already they have 2 million. Your reasoning is not to help genuine refugees but off a hte you do not want any of them in the UK. That again is barbaric and insidious. Granted there is problems with some single male adults who's its questionable are even refugees at all, but where there is families, homosexuals, religious minorities, there should not be much issue with after checks allowing them entry to then through the asylum process. If Turkey was to take all the refugees, they would have in excess of 6 million, and you seem to think that is fair, which is insane, when the rest of the world needs to play their part

Yes in some cases children are better off with homosexual parents as proven by studies, this is because many homosexual couples tend to be better off in middle class families. You then say natural parents, which would mean then that no children should ever be adopted by anyone as to you only biological parents should raise children, which would men then you would back many homosexual parents to raise their own children, when today many are biological. You see the more you make the most insane and absurd points, you end up backing homosexual parents but in the same breath then deny all children who need adoptive parents because they should be with the natural biological parents.
I have to say your views are just simply sadistic and have no thought or care for the children and its nothing more than you being hateful of homosexuals. I am sure homosexual parents would gladly adopt children who are refugees as well as heterosexual, but again you are not concerned for the children at all, because you do not want any children who are victims of war to seek safety, where they feel safe

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:50 am

The ones you mention are genuinely 'only a few'...!!!

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The ones you mention are genuinely 'only a few'...!!!

Here I have something to interest your mental capacity

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK Z

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK Z

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:31 pm

No room at the inn...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35403862

We already have problems dealing with the numbers we already get!!!

They should stay where they already are and be looked after by the countries they are already in!!!

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No room at the inn...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35403862

We already have problems dealing with the numbers we already get!!!

They should stay where they already are and be looked after by the countries they are already in!!!

Lying again, what did it actually say?

Kent County Council said the continuing flow of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) from across the English Channel had left it with no choice.
The authority currently has 924 such children in its care, compared with nearly 630 at the start of last August.

Other authorities elsewhere in the UK have accepted full responsibility for 56 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

Clearly again this is speaking about other councils taking on more, not that the UK has no more room at the inn.

This is why people do not give you the time of day Tommy when you are the worst fibber

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:12 am

You have to admit, though -- it's funny as hell to see him blowing up with rage Laughing

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK 3018442852

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK 1132368643

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK 3893789544

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:32 am

Twisting again Dodge...

(Insert your own words for what I said here)

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:46 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:You have to admit, though -- it's funny as hell to see him blowing up with rage

Even funnier when he fibs to back up the rant lol

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:57 am

What fib twat!?

Was just one example... no 'fibs'fron me ... just a bit of dodgy waffle from you!!!

And to think you really believe people are fooled by your bullshit!!!

That is the funniest part!!!

lol!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:05 am

No room at the inn

That was a fib

So it was a massive fib

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:29 am

We are full!!!

Go somewhere else!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:35 am

You go somewhere else as you do not own the whole land or even come close to doing so.

by Major Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:08 pm

We do knothole enough decent, responsible adults to look after our own waifs and strays.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:16 pm

Have you not heard about the problems of housing and on NHS and schools and roads and transport networks of shortages and overcrowding directly because we have had too many people being allowed to arrive here!!!???

Also...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:24 pm

Yes I have heard of the same survey you have framed in gold and diamonds Tommy, which nobody is disputing it needs to be controlled.

Again infrastructure is down to Governments to resolve with an increase, it does not mean we cannot help which again your previous link was more about other areas helping

by Major Tue Jan 26, 2016 5:17 pm

Keep them out, they will eventually breed like rabbits, go into adulthood to be terrorists forgetting we gave them life.

FHS wake up.

by eddie Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:20 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:Where are the children's parents?

????

No idea Eddie, which if they are on their own is appalling.
Happy if he does this as he should, though again it begs the question why is France not doing so?
If they are with their parents, it will be devastating to separate them

Well yes that was my point didge. They can't septerate them from their parents surely?

by eddie Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Eddie... firstly... what is wrong with them being looked after by the countries they are currently in!?

Secondly... What's the betting that as soon as any are let in here... their parents suddenly 'appear' and demand to be let in too so as to be 'reunited' with their lost loved ones!!!???

Thirdly... it is well known that many adults pretend to be 15-16 etc so as to be considered 'vulnerable children' and get special consideration!!!

Hang on tommy! There must be a reason that the story says it's just children??!
I'd have no problem allowing 3,000 needy children in to stay.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:24 pm

From the OP...

'...Downing Street said ministers were looking at calls from charities for the UK to admit at least 3,000 unaccompanied young people who have arrived in Europe from countries including Syria and Afghanistan...'

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:From the OP...

'...Downing Street said ministers were looking at calls from charities for the UK to admit at least 3,000 unaccompanied young people who have arrived in Europe from countries including Syria and Afghanistan...'

young person

plural noun: young people
(in the UK) a person generally from 14 to 17 years of age.

Maybe Tommy does not think the victims of grooming gangs were victims at all or even children I guess?

Or that young people of this age are not vulnerable or capable of being manipulated by grooming and clearly must think its a travesty of justice all these gangs were incarcerated?
Please write to the home Office Tommy and let me know how you get on
A child can be guilty of a crime, but a child is not guilty for being a child

The Government is coming under mounting political pressure to address the "genuinely terrifying" situation facing thousands of child refugees in Europe - including from within its own party. There was cross-party support for Save the Children's recommendation that Britain should admit 3,000 young people sooner rather than later during a parliamentary debate on Monday.

Yvette Cooper, who secured the urgent question in the Commons, said that Save the Children estimated there were 26,000 children currently living alone in Europe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/25/government-child-refugees-europe-uk_n_9070870.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:50 pm

They are OK being looked after by the countries they are already in!

And as I said before... it is well known that they lie about their ages to pretend they are under 18 so as to get better treatment and more chance of being allowed to stay!!!

Also... once allowed to stay because of being 'unaccompanied', the parents will suddenly reappear and demand entry too!!!

The answer should be a firm NO!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:They are OK being looked after by the countries they are already in!

And as I said before... it is well known that they lie about their ages to pretend they are under 18 so as to get better treatment and more chance of being allowed to stay!!!Also... once allowed to stay because of being 'unaccompanied', the parents will suddenly reappear and demand entry too!!!
The answer should be a firm NO!!!

Save the Children estimated there were 26,000 children currently living alone in Europe.

Nobody is listening to you because you seem to not care what happens to vulnerable children

We all play are part and the parents are clearly still in the war torn areas, no doubt fighting against extremist groups.
As has it never occurred to you that families have been moving to ISIS? Why would any then allow their children to leave?
It only makes sense of those actually staying to fight for their homes, which means they would then wish their children to return once over.
These people value their children lives, where those of extremist Islam would allow them to die as martyrs

by eddie Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:59 pm

Tommy would you allow children under 14 to come here?

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:01 pm

Pure speculation about parents Dodge. ..

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Pure speculation about parents Dodge. ..

Really Tommy after you claimed this based off no statistical evidence

Tommy Monk wrote:
And as I said before... it is well known that they lie about their ages to pretend they are under 18 so as to get better treatment and more chance of being allowed to stay!!!Also... once allowed to stay because of being 'unaccompanied', the parents will suddenly reappear and demand entry too!!!

!

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK DUNCE

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:17 pm

Eddie... not as in the proposal in op... they can be looked after by country they are already in.

We already have unaccompanied children arriving here as asylum seekers... as well as these 'children'...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2795475/teachers-claim-male-asylum-seekers-20s-ending-schools-lying-age-stay-uk.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11167808/Teachers-voice-fears-over-adult-asylum-seekers-given-place-in-schools.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/immigrant-22--from-afghanistan-claimed-800182

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:21 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Eddie... not as in the proposal in op... they can be looked after by country they are already in.

We already have unaccompanied children arriving here as asylum seekers... as well as these 'children'...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2795475/teachers-claim-male-asylum-seekers-20s-ending-schools-lying-age-stay-uk.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11167808/Teachers-voice-fears-over-adult-asylum-seekers-given-place-in-schools.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/immigrant-22--from-afghanistan-claimed-800182

Statistical evidence, not hearsay based off a couple of individuals

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK DUNCE

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:25 pm

Also clearly more gobbledygook from Tommy

The article had included direct quotations from head teachers. One stated that schools had been told to expect pupils “who were 15 or 16 only to find they were clearly 20 or 21”, and that “sometimes there is doubt about where [the pupils] have come from, and even what age they are”, and another stating “while many of these are genuine cases… a minority are not”.
Two head teachers quoted also referred to “safeguarding concerns”.
The complainant said that the coverage was inaccurate as there was no proof that asylum seekers had been lying about their age, nor had any adults of 20 been placed in schools with pupils aged 11.
He noted that none of the head teachers quoted in the article had confirmed that there were pupils enrolled at their schools who had lied about their ages, nor had they expressed concerns about safety.
The complainant had spoken to a representative from the County Council who had said that there had been only two cases over a number of years in which unaccompanied asylum seekers were found to be older than originally thought.
Neither was 20, and neither was placed in a school with 11 year olds. Furthermore, there were only 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent this academic year, with just 3 placed in Canterbury.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/ipso-complaint-upheld--adult-33340/

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:28 pm

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:29 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRys2dkTvn0&app=desktop

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

by Sponsored content