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

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

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 Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I was right.

Wrong

The Government are not going to take in unaccompanied children from Europe, as the original article said, but they will take in ones from Syria and other war zones.

They never said that

They said they would look at.
Not take in.,

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:59 pm

Who the fuck cares? I'm so bored with this shit anyway.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:59 pm

He was allegedly considering it, and now he's not.

FFS - just give it a rest Didge.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Who the fuck cares? I'm so bored with this shit anyway.

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK - Page 3 2Q==

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:01 pm

I don't care Didge. You can "win" if you like. You're here day after day after day, all day long, arguing about nothing.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't care Didge. You can "win" if you like. You're here day after day after day, all day long, arguing about nothing.

By replying you do care rags lol

Seriously, stop allowing yourself to get sucked in, its just banter and you react again lol

Chill out

Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:03 pm

I'm seriously fucking bored with this forum at the moment.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:05 pm

Someone wants attention

So will just ignore as they are being silly now

by eddie Thu Jan 28, 2016 3:01 pm

Most of these debates become about how something is phrased or a word or a meaning of the word.....

And the subject matter just gets overlooked.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Yes eddie... deliberate waffle to achieve exactly that objective!

by Guest Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:45 am

lol is Tommy still upset, because everyone thinks his reasons to deny children are barbaric?

by Tommy Monk Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:23 pm

They are already in safe countries and can be looked after well enough there!

We already have plenty to deal with...

by Guest Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:26 pm

You are just regurgitating the same points
Which have been easily rebuked

by nicko Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:19 pm

Been looking at some of these "children" some look older than I do!!

by Major Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:19 pm

Didge wrote:lol is Tommy still upset, because everyone thinks his reasons to deny children are barbaric?

Tommy is not denying children.

Tommy is preventing future terrorism reaching our shores and also national bankruptcy because they will bleed us dry and turn on us.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:20 pm

If I was to suggest that the UK and our people were better than other European countries then Dodge would quickly deny this and accuse me of racism and xenaphobia etc and tell us how other eu countries were the same or equal or even better than us in so many ways... but he is also arguing that none of them are good enough to adequately look after any of the "unaccompanied asylum seeking 'children'" who are there, and how our country and people are the only ones who can look after them adequately enough and any other eu country looking after them would be 'barbaric'...!!!

lol!

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:58 am

Stormee wrote:
Didge wrote:lol is Tommy still upset, because everyone thinks his reasons to deny children are barbaric?

Tommy is not denying children.

Tommy is preventing future terrorism reaching our shores and also national bankruptcy because they will bleed us dry and turn on us.

So now you claim they are all going to grow up and be terrorist these children, including the Christian Syrians, the Druze Syrians, the Yizidi Syrians, the Kurdish Syrians etc refugees now in refugee camps in the Middle east?
By arguing off a falsified bases, where nobody can know how many of these refugees will believe any religion, let alone the religion they were raised with. Considering Atheism is growing far faster than any belief system in this country, your reasoning is absurd. Considering they are being held in refugee camps outside Syria and Iraq and have not fled to Europe, staying near to Syria, making every single point Tommy has made moot and redundant. As Cameron is picking from those within the Middle East in refugee camps, then Tommy is fundamentally against helping children, based off a future guilt by association and then only to some of the refugees, being as not all are Muslim.

So on every aspect Tommy, would champion his hate, with his weak arguments, over helping children in desperate need.

Well considering it was migrants that help bail us out of the recession, again your views are some what right out of the bonkers tree

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:05 am

Tommy Monk wrote:If I was to suggest that the UK and our people were better than other European countries then Dodge would quickly deny this and accuse me of racism and xenaphobia etc and tell us how other eu countries were the same or equal or even better than us in so many ways... but he is also arguing that none of them are good enough to adequately look after any of the "unaccompanied asylum seeking 'children'" who are there, and how our country and people are the only ones who can look after them adequately enough and any other eu country looking after them would be 'barbaric'...!!!

Wow, that has to be the most immature comment you have come up with.
So you tell me Tommy, placing yourself in the position as a refugee with next to no money and requiring food to survive, which you have at your finger tips and they do not? How we have organisations, where this is just a mass of people over many miles and areas. Where adult refugees do help out but again there is the most prevalent risk of child trafficking. I would like to see how you would fair in the middle of a concert, that then a mass exodus happens, where they head for the safety of the sea over many miles and you are just pushed along, with hardly anything to sustain you. How you would coordinate looking after all the children among the tens of thousands? I am sure many countries are able to cope to help in this situation, but the very fact you think refugees should be able to do so, is so daft, it should be constantly ridiculed by every poster

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:27 am

P.S. You also say this country looks after adequately and the people, well that really is also quite a myth considering 69,000 children are at present in care. Have then not a significant number of British people failed them Tommy? Did the system also let many down when they are victims of child sex abuse? Not only that the thousands that are homeless, that every day thousands of people walk by and ignore. But even with all these problems, there is a clear priority to look after vulnerable children, where here is going to be far better than life in any of the refugee camps for unaccompanied children.

protection of refugee children - UNHCR - Emergencies
https://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=7325

by Raggamuffin Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:37 am

Didge wrote:P.S. You also say this country looks after adequately and the people, well that really is also quite a myth considering 69,000 children are at present in care. Have then not a significant number of British people failed them Tommy? Did the system also let many down when they are victims of child sex abuse? Not only that the thousands that are homeless, that every day thousands of people walk by and ignore. But even with all these problems, there is a clear priority to look after vulnerable children, where here is going to be far better than life in any of the refugee camps for unaccompanied children.

protection of refugee children - UNHCR - Emergencies
https://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=7325

That's not what Tommy said though is it?

by Ben Reilly Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:12 am

Stormee wrote:
Didge wrote:lol is Tommy still upset, because everyone thinks his reasons to deny children are barbaric?

Tommy is not denying children.

Tommy is preventing future terrorism reaching our shores and also national bankruptcy because they will bleed us dry and turn on us.

I think if the two of you had been Nazis, Hitler would have kicked you out for going a bit too far with the racism ...

by nicko Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:53 am

Just as a matter of interest, and not wishing to insult anyone, how many refugees has Texas taken?

because it is a big state isn't it?

by Major Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:57 am

nicko wrote:Just as a matter of interest, and not wishing to insult anyone, how many refugees has Texas taken?

because it is a big state isn't it?

Texas is full of Mexicans who the Yanks detest.

by nicko Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:09 pm

Down in the west Texas town of el-paso, great song.

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:42 pm

nicko wrote:Just as a matter of interest, and not wishing to insult anyone, how many refugees has Texas taken?

because it is a big state isn't it?

Texas has taken in more refugees than any other state in the past five years, including about 250 Syrian refugees. But it also fought harder than any other state to stop Syrian refugees after the attacks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/08/syrian-refugee-families-arrive-texas-indiana

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:P.S. You also say this country looks after adequately and the people, well that really is also quite a myth considering 69,000 children are at present in care. Have then not a significant number of British people failed them Tommy? Did the system also let many down when they are victims of child sex abuse? Not only that the thousands that are homeless, that every day thousands of people walk by and ignore. But even with all these problems, there is a clear priority to look after vulnerable children, where here is going to be far better than life in any of the refugee camps for unaccompanied children.

protection of refugee children - UNHCR - Emergencies
https://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=7325

That's not what Tommy said though is it?

he basically said so yes, claiming that Syrian refugees, and laughing about this could not care for countless unaccompanied children.
It was about the most idiotic thing he could say
Like i say you try to organised and protect so many children when the influx is mixed with an unknown quantity of migrants?
When we last sent unaccompanied children abroad as refugees in WW2, we were not fleeing Britain in mass numbers

by Tommy Monk Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:54 pm

We are talking about the ones in Europe already Dodge... stop twisting!!!

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:We are talking about the ones in Europe already Dodge... stop twisting!!!

The same applies to those in Europe, hence why your point was so utterly backward
In fact it applies even more so based on the mass movements of refugees

by Tommy Monk Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:58 pm

I refer you back to my earlier post...

They can be adequately looked after by other European countries they are already in!

by Major Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:03 pm

Tommy, every Tom Dick and Abdul wanna get here because of OUR benefit system, as much as I am anti scroungerz it is a natural aim for them.

They should be stopped at the first country they arrive in but they are UNWANTED worldwide.

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I refer you back to my earlier post...

They can be adequately looked after by other European countries they are already in!

Well as there is many reports stating they are not being look after and that they are unaccompanied Tommy, that again moots your reasoning

by Tommy Monk Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:10 pm

If they refuse to register for helo in the countries they are in then that is their fault!!!

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:15 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If they refuse to register for helo in the countries they are in then that is their fault!!!

So you classing children as adults now then?

Which shows you did not download the link I gave you to help educate you.

So you are now fundementally blaming children, for a war they did not create, of which they were pushed into travelling to and through the EU by family members, equates you to claiming its their own fault..

You just keep on making things even more backwards with every comment you write

by Tommy Monk Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:16 pm

(Insert your own words here for what I said dodge)

lol!

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:19 pm

No need Tommy, I place your reasoning on a par with some of the left who are regressive.

Like I said as backward as it gets

by Major Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:20 pm

Show where he is blaming children, Didge.

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:33 pm

Stormee wrote:Show where he is blaming children, Didge.

Did you read his second to last post where he states blaming them based off not where the children feel safe or may have relatives, speak the language etc, but to him, he blames them for when the child is in a EU country, should register there to him, and if they have not, its their fault.
Its backwards

by Tommy Monk Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:36 pm

Waffle Dodge. ..

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:50 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle Dodge. ..

I am sending you this in the post to keep you occupied for the next year or so. Just so you can spend hours daily attempting to put together

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

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

by Tommy Monk Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:26 pm

by Raggamuffin Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:13 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not what Tommy said though is it?

he basically said so yes, claiming that Syrian refugees, and laughing about this could not care for countless unaccompanied children.
It was about the most idiotic thing he could say
Like i say you try to organised and protect so many children when the influx is mixed with an unknown quantity of migrants?
When we last sent unaccompanied children abroad as refugees in WW2, we were not fleeing Britain in mass numbers

No, he said that you are talking as if Britain is the only country which can look after them.

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

he basically said so yes, claiming that Syrian refugees, and laughing about this could not care for countless unaccompanied children.
It was about the most idiotic thing he could say
Like i say you try to organised and protect so many children when the influx is mixed with an unknown quantity of migrants?
When we last sent unaccompanied children abroad as refugees in WW2, we were not fleeing Britain in mass numbers

No, he said that you are talking as if Britain is the only country which can look after them.

Wrong on both counts

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:19 pm

12,685 applications from unaccompanied minors, which is pathetic that I even have to post up[ because some still try to poorly defend someone so backward that throughout they have argued for children to be denied

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/uam/uam_infographic_a4_en.pdf

by Raggamuffin Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:29 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No, he said that you are talking as if Britain is the only country which can look after them.

Wrong on both counts

Read his post again.

If I was to suggest that the UK and our people were better than other European countries then Dodge would quickly deny this and accuse me of racism and xenaphobia etc and tell us how other eu countries were the same or equal or even better than us in so many ways... but he is also arguing that none of them are good enough to adequately look after any of the "unaccompanied asylum seeking 'children'" who are there, and how our country and people are the only ones who can look after them adequately enough and any other eu country looking after them would be 'barbaric'...!!!

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Wrong on both counts

Read his post again.

If I was to suggest that the UK and our people were better than other European countries then Dodge would quickly deny this and accuse me of racism and xenaphobia etc and tell us how other eu countries were the same or equal or even better than us in so many ways... but he is also arguing that none of them are good enough to adequately look after any of the "unaccompanied asylum seeking 'children'" who are there, and how our country and people are the only ones who can look after them adequately enough and any other eu country looking after them would be 'barbaric'...!!!

Wrong again, where again you fail to see what throughout he has been arguing, where he states they should apply in that first country.
Now at no point have I ever stated that they should all come here and with the fact EU countries already taking in unaccompanied children, I knew exactly where he was conning from, where it sees you fail to understand, though not sure what you failed to miss with the lol

IO suggest in future you learn to follow the actual thread where throughout he argued to deny children.

Learn context then I am not wasting time explain where you fail to read throughout. His comments were an unfounded accusation, based off already where he had argued against helping children, even today, he still argued for them to apply in the first country, even though they may have relatives or speak parts of the language of another nation

by Raggamuffin Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:41 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Read his post again.

Wrong again, where again you fail to see what throughout he has been arguing, where he states they should apply in that first country.
Now at no point have I ever stated that they should all come here and with the fact EU countries already taking in unaccompanied children, I knew exactly where he was conning from, where it sees you fail to understand, though not sure what you failed to miss with the lol

IO suggest in future you learn to follow the actual thread where throughout he argued to deny children.

Learn context then I am not wasting time explain where you fail to read throughout. His comments were an unfounded accusation, based off already where he had argued against helping children, even today, he still argued for them to apply in the first country, even though they may have relatives or speak parts of the language of another nation

I'm not saying that he's correct about what you said, I said that you were wrong about what you claimed he was saying.

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Wrong again, where again you fail to see what throughout he has been arguing, where he states they should apply in that first country.
Now at no point have I ever stated that they should all come here and with the fact EU countries already taking in unaccompanied children, I knew exactly where he was conning from, where it sees you fail to understand, though not sure what you failed to miss with the lol

IO suggest in future you learn to follow the actual thread where throughout he argued to deny children.

Learn context then I am not wasting time explain where you fail to read throughout. His comments were an unfounded accusation, based off already where he had argued against helping children, even today, he still argued for them to apply in the first country, even though they may have relatives or speak parts of the language of another nation

I'm not saying that he's correct about what you said, I said that you were wrong about what you claimed he was saying.

Not wrong at all, as he finished the post with his trade mark

lol!

So learn context,

Thanks

by Raggamuffin Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:44 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not saying that he's correct about what you said, I said that you were wrong about what you claimed he was saying.

Not wrong at all, as he finished the post with his trade mark

So learn context,

Thanks

You claimed that he was saying that this country adequately looks after whoever, but that's not what he was saying. He was saying that you're the one claiming that no other country can look after them adequately.

by Guest Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Not wrong at all, as he finished the post with his trade mark

So learn context,

Thanks

You claimed that he was saying that this country adequately looks after whoever, but that's not what he was saying. He was saying that you're the one claiming that no other country can look after them adequately.

Sorry but two people arguing over what someone else posts is absurd
Again read his first sentence, then read back to other views, where he states again they should sign up and apply in the first nation they come to
That is fundamentally unfair, based on geographical location, where he is deciding the fate of people and not those themselves.
if he did not mean what he said, he would not have insinuated and accused, but I guess again context is not one of your string poiints where again he ended with a lol

So you can harp on all you like, I have all night

by Raggamuffin Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:51 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You claimed that he was saying that this country adequately looks after whoever, but that's not what he was saying. He was saying that you're the one claiming that no other country can look after them adequately.

Sorry but two people arguing over what someone else posts is absurd
Again read his first sentence, then read back to other views, where he states again they should sign up and apply in the first nation they come to
That is fundamentally unfair, based on geographical location, where he is deciding the fate of people and not those themselves.
if he did not mean what he said, he would not have insinuated and accused, but I guess again context is not one of your string poiints where again he ended with a lol

So you can harp on all you like, I have all night

I'm merely pointing out that you misunderstood one of his posts, and claimed he said something which he did not say.

by Sponsored content