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 Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:30 pm

So a person caught lying trying to get through customs

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK - Page 2 3489511464

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK - Page 2 3489511464

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:54 pm

Didge wrote:
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

Dodge said this... quoting from my link...

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

And from Dodge's post a few minutes ago...

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/

lol!

So who's lying now Dodge...!!!???

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:58 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

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

Dodge said this... quoting from my link...

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

And from Dodge's post a few minutes ago...

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/

So who's lying now Dodge...!!!???

Does anyone else want to point out Tommy's huge error above?

I will give him a chance for it to sink in before I make him look even more silly

Tommy stated

No more room at the inn, which he omitted from the above

Lie, after lie after lie

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:07 pm

Look at the numbers in the quotes you gave Dodge...

Both of which you claim to be true...!!!

I said no more room at the inn... we are full... meaning we have enough of our own people waiting in need of help... so we aren't in a position to help others!!!

The article I posted showed Kent County Council saying that they already had so many unaccompanied children asylum seekers to deal with that they had to pass some onto other authorities to deal with to ease the strain!!!

My article said 924 currently in Kent County Council care, up from 630 the August before...

You posted this as true!!!

Then you posted the other link with this quote from Kent County Council...

'...there were only 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent this academic year...'

lol!

So who's lying...!!!???

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:11 pm

Yes please look at the words Tommy which you glaringly miss.

ha ha ha ha ha ha

A couple of words for you

Care

Placement in schools

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK - Page 2 3489511464

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:15 pm

Here is Tommy;s article again:

Vulnerable children are being placed in care outside their home county of Kent due to the influx of child asylum seekers, according to council chiefs.
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.
Councillor Peter Oakford said it was "not a position we want to be in".
The cabinet member for specialist children's services said Kent County Council had seen a 30% rise in looked-after children in the past seven months.
Other authorities elsewhere in the UK have accepted full responsibility for 56 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Mr Oakford told the children's social care and health cabinet committee: "This has affected our ability to place citizen children within Kent ourselves.
"We have had to place Kent children outside of Kent due to the influx of UASC, which is not a good position to be in and is not a position we want to be in.
"It's actually costing us more financially because we have had to place, I think, six children into residential care either short-term or longer term, which is far more expensive than normal foster care."
The council's services have been stretched since the start of the migrant crisis last summer as Kent is the closest British county to Calais and Dunkirk.
The number of child asylum seekers coming into its care has slowed to about 15 a week during the winter, but Mr Oakford said if that increased with the arrival of the warmer months the authority would be "in significant difficulties".

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

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:17 pm

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/

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK - Page 2 3489511464

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:24 pm

Both articles are talking about total numbers of unaccompanied children asylum seekers in Kent County Council care Dodge!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Both articles are talking about total numbers of unaccompanied children asylum seekers in Kent County Council care Dodge!!!

Oh dear someone just released their screwup

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK - Page 2 3489511464

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:28 pm

frau merkel invited em, they are HER problem. why should WE bail her out???

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:28 pm

"...there were only 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent this academic year..."

It says "in kent"... not "in schools in kent"...

And a year is a year... an academic year is just a measurement of a year from September to August the following year!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

"...there were only 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent this academic year..."

It says "in kent"... not "in schools in kent"...

And a year is a year... an academic year is just a measurement of a year from September to August the following year!!!

It is based off talking about schools Tommy of which you failed to read all your article as well ha ha ha

Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are cared for by social services departments
under the provisions of the Children Act 1989. Care arrangements vary. Under 16s
should be cared for under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and be termed ‘looked
after’ or ‘in public care'. They are usually placed in children’s homes or with foster carers.
Those aged 16-18 may be cared for under Section 17 or Section 20 of the Children Act.
They may live in children’s homes, with foster carers or independently. The voucher and
dispersal scheme introduced after the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
does not apply to unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4925/1/EducatAsylumSeeking.pdf

The telling part you failed to read in your BBC article

"It's actually costing us more financially because we have had to place, I think, six children into residential care either short-term or longer term, which is far more expensive than normal foster care."

Most are placed into foster care, thus the council will only have a few in actual residential care, hence less to place in schools.
Children in care includes those in foster care. That is why you fail to understand something so simple and yet again you come into the debate with your foot in your mouth

DOH

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:43 pm

The BBC article I posted is saying that kent councik is increasingly being forced to pass Kent born children in their care onto other councils outside of kent to help deal with because they are instead being forced to look after the imcreasingly large numbers of 'unaccompanied asylum seeking children' who are turning up in the area!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:45 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The BBC article I posted is saying that kent councik is increasingly being forced to pass Kent born children in their care onto other councils outside of kent to help deal with because they are instead being forced to look after the imcreasingly large numbers of 'unaccompanied asylum seeking children' who are turning up in the area!!!

The article says many things, which you failed to fundamentally understand, which I had to dumb down for you, to then understand
Look we all get you seem to hate children, and class young people not as children and thus all victims of grooming gangs as adults Tommy

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:59 pm

One article says 924 unaccompanied asylum seeking children are currently under Kent County Council authority care... this would include all those placed in foster homes or residential facilities... and out of this total, many will also be in schools...

One article says 924 it the authority care... the other says...

...there were only 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent this academic year..."

It does not say "in schools in kent"!!!

It just suggests "in kent" as a whole!!!

Deliberately misleading???

But let's not lose sight of the main point I showed in the BBC article...

It is saying that kent council is increasingly being forced to pass Kent born children in their care onto other councils outside of kent to help deal with because they are instead being forced to look after the imcreasingly large numbers of 'unaccompanied asylum seeking children' who are turning up in the area!!

This would not be happening if we had room for more new arrivals... ours are being shuffled off elsewhere away from their friends and families and home environmemts to make room for and cope with the new foreign arrivals!!

We are full!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:03 pm

lol ha ha ha

I still cannot believe he is still desperate to go off his same mistake

lol!

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:55 pm

I have quoted the information provided as it was written... as did you!!!

The official statements claim different things by their wording...

If the claim of 10 is only talking about the asylum children in school... it is worded in a misleading fashion to suggest that there were only 10 in kent in total when the other statement clearly says over 900!!!

Deliberately! ?

Who knows...

But if only 10 in schools in kent ought of 900+... then why aren't the other 900 in schools!!!???

Cos we keep hearing the argument that we should be looking after them BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE IN SCHOOL!!!

When in reality... they don't even go to schools!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:03 pm

lol he is still desperate ha ha ha

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:26 pm

I am quoting the official statements from two different kent council spokesmen...

Answer the questions!

Is it 900+ unaccompanied asylum seeker children in council care as claimed in one statement?

Or only 10 as claimed in other?

Or if the claim of 10 was only about those actually in schools in kent... although worded misleadingly... why aren't the other 900 in schools when we keep hearing the argument that we must take these children for them to be in school and not missing out on education!?

Answers please!?

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:31 pm

lol and he is still desperate and fails to grasp how he screwed up

Migrant Crisis: David Cameron Considering Admitting At Least 3,000 Migrant Children Into The UK - Page 2 3489511464

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:41 pm

I didn't screw anything up... I have quoted the statements!!!

Answer the questions!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:46 pm

You screwed up big time, its alright because Victor has outdone you for stupidity tonight, so do not worry

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:03 am

I quoted official statements...

Questions are raised and valid!

Answer them or carry on twisting like the worm you are...

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:04 am

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

"...there were only 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent this academic year..."

It says "in kent"... not "in schools in kent"...

And a year is a year... an academic year is just a measurement of a year from September to August the following year!!!

It is based off talking about schools Tommy of which you failed to read all your article as well ha ha ha

Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are cared for by social services departments
under the provisions of the Children Act 1989. Care arrangements vary. Under 16s
should be cared for under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and be termed ‘looked
after’ or ‘in public care'. They are usually placed in children’s homes or with foster carers.
Those aged 16-18 may be cared for under Section 17 or Section 20 of the Children Act.
They may live in children’s homes, with foster carers or independently. The voucher and
dispersal scheme introduced after the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
does not apply to unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4925/1/EducatAsylumSeeking.pdf

The telling part you failed to read in your BBC article

"It's actually costing us more financially because we have had to place, I think, six children into residential care either short-term or longer term, which is far more expensive than normal foster care."

Most are placed into foster care, thus the council will only have a few in actual residential care, hence less to place in schools.
Children in care includes those in foster care. That is why you fail to understand something so simple and yet again you come into the debate with your foot in your mouth

DOH

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:18 am

Dodge you bellend!!!

It doesn't matter if they are in foster care or residential care... they are ALL still under the jurisdiction of the council authority and included in the overall total number shown in the BBC link I gave!!!

That shows a statement from council official of 924!!!

Then you posted a link showing a council official stating that there were only 10 in the juristiction of care in ket council authority!!!

Both cannot be true!!!

Then you claimed that the 10 claim was only referring to those who were actually in schools in kent... although this was not what was said in quote... so the question remains... if only 10 in schools... why are the other 900 or so not in schools!!!???

Simple question!!!

But all deflecting from the original point that kent council is having to shuffle kent born children out of the area onto other councils to deal with, away from their friends and family and home areas because the council are inundated with asylum seeking children there who they are instead being forced to look after!!!

Why do you keep twisting!?

I think I have made things clear enough even for an idiot like you to understand!!!

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:33 am

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

"...there were only 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent this academic year..."

It says "in kent"... not "in schools in kent"...

And a year is a year... an academic year is just a measurement of a year from September to August the following year!!!

It is based off talking about schools Tommy of which you failed to read all your article as well ha ha ha

Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are cared for by social services departments
under the provisions of the Children Act 1989. Care arrangements vary. Under 16s
should be cared for under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and be termed ‘looked
after’ or ‘in public care'. They are usually placed in children’s homes or with foster carers.
Those aged 16-18 may be cared for under Section 17 or Section 20 of the Children Act.
They may live in children’s homes, with foster carers or independently. The voucher and
dispersal scheme introduced after the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
does not apply to unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4925/1/EducatAsylumSeeking.pdf

The telling part you failed to read in your BBC article

"It's actually costing us more financially because we have had to place, I think, six children into residential care either short-term or longer term, which is far more expensive than normal foster care."

Most are placed into foster care, thus the council will only have a few in actual residential care, hence less to place in schools.
Children in care includes those in foster care. That is why you fail to understand something so simple and yet again you come into the debate with your foot in your mouth

DOH

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:05 am

Still no answers then...!?

You still don't realise that any placed at with foster parents or in residential care will still be included in the total numbers... claimed to be 924 in one article!!!

Just repeating your bullshit doesn't get round the facts!!!

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:07 am

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Dodge said this... quoting from my link...

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

And from Dodge's post a few minutes ago...

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/

So who's lying now Dodge...!!!???

Does anyone else want to point out Tommy's huge error above?

I will give him a chance for it to sink in before I make him look even more silly

Tommy stated

No more room at the inn, which he omitted from the above

Lie, after lie after lie

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:32 am

And will still show up on figures in school if in school.

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:35 am

You got it wrong Tommy, and just going to leave you to sulk now

So enjoy

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:14 pm

What did I get wrong then Dodge! ?

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:29 am

The UK will take in more refugee children from Syria and other conflict zones, the Home Office has announced, but the Government will not act on calls to resettle 3,000 children living unaccompanied in Europe. In an apparent compromise, Britain will work with the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) to bring unaccompanied refugee children to the UK from Syria and other war-torn regions. Officials said the exact numbers of refugee children to be resettled in the UK would be assessed by UNHCR experts working in Syria and elsewhere, but confirmed that new arrivals would be additional to the 20,000 Syrian refugees the Government has pledged to take in by 2020. Ministers had said this week that they were “considering” calls to take in some of the thousands of unaccompanied refugee children currently in Europe, who charities say are especially vulnerable to exploitation and traffickers.

However, the new pledge appears to extinguish any prospect of the UK taking in refugees from Europe. Instead, a new £10 million fund will be established to support migrant and refugee children in Europe.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/refugee-crisis-uk-to-resettle-more-children-from-syria-says-home-office-a6838136.html

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:02 am

So still not answered... what do you think I got wrong!?

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:08 am

lol So now we know they will be coming from Syrian Refugee camps which fundamentally dispels all Tommy's points

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:18 am

The article is saying the govt is refusing to take in 3000 already in Europe as was proposed!

Can't you read?

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:34 am

No the article is saying that it is taking in children Tommy, which you were against throughout.
cant you read

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:37 am

First Post

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

Nowhere in the original article did it say they would be from the EU, that was what was requested from other MP's

So Tommy, can you not read?

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:56 am

That is what we've been talking about you doughnut!!!

The original op was showing that proposal!!!

You posted it didn't you!?

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:10 pm

ha ha ha bless Tommy seems upset after he was the one going on about the EU as well

Like I said, cant you read? lol

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:19 pm

What is wrong with you...!!!???

You are deranged!!!

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:20 pm

Bless, calm down Tommy, no need to get so emotional lol

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:46 pm

*sigh*

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.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:*sigh*

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.

Sigh, I suggest you read the article again love lol

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

Some people simply cannot read

Again is now the Uk going to admit refugee children?

Yes

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:37 pm

*sigh*

The UK will take in more refugee children from Syria and other conflict zones, the Home Office has announced, but the Government will not act on calls to resettle 3,000 children living unaccompanied in Europe.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:46 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:*sigh*

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.

Sigh, I suggest you read the article again love lol

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

Some people simply cannot read

Again is now the Uk going to admit refugee children?

Yes

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:48 pm

So what's the point of all this? He was allegedly considering it, and now he's not. The end.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So what's the point of all this? He was allegedly considering it, and now he's not. The end.

Incorrect

Did he consider letting in refugee children?

Yes

is he going to let in additional refugee children?

Yes

That first part of the article is 100% correct

The papers played off wrongly which unaccompanied children he might let in, but then they did say consider, which no doubt he did

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:52 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So what's the point of all this? He was allegedly considering it, and now he's not. The end.

Incorrect

Did he consider letting in refugee children?

Yes

is he going to let in additional refugee children?

Yes

That first part of the article is 100% correct

The papers played off wrongly which unaccompanied children he might let in, but then they did say consider, which no doubt he did

So I was correct then, not incorrect.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Incorrect

Did he consider letting in refugee children?

Yes

is he going to let in additional refugee children?

Yes

That first part of the article is 100% correct

The papers played off wrongly which unaccompanied children he might let in, but then they did say consider, which no doubt he did

So I was correct then, not incorrect.

No completely wrong

Which is hilarious, when you jump in being uppity and get your foot stuck in your gob lol

It stated he would consider

He did consider

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:56 pm

I was right.

by Sponsored content