16 year old afghan from the jungle is shown to be really 22!!!

First topic message reminder :



An official remembers him enrolling I'm kabul university 3 years ago and an online dating profile shows him as 22 too!!!


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2078483/22-year-old-bearded-migrant-uni-student-insists-hes-just-sixteen-as-he-starts-secondary-school-classes/

Spindleshanks wrote:

Syl wrote:

As did many other countries.

That still doesn't detract from my original point that thousands of underage males enlisted by lying about their age.

It seems you aren't getting the point Syl.  

You think the male refugees should stay and fight suggesting its what British men did voluntarily while ignoring the fact that for the most part they actually had little choice in the matter.  Arrest, imprisonment or even execution awaited those who defied conscription or who went awol.

Underage kids fighting wars is a side issue, unless you think the Syrian government should be forcing 14 year olds to fight?

I don't agree with you so I'm not "getting the point?"
.
My original point was when Scrat posted a picture of the devastation of war in Afghanistan I posted one that was almost identical of England when we were at war.
Our men fought, they didn't leave their wives and kids behind to seek a better life for themselves elsewhere.


Who said anything about forcing underage kids to fight....I said thousands of British kids lied about their age in order to fight....don't try to twist words.

They did too Syl, especially in the first world war.

My dad lied about his age to join up in the second world war.  He was 15 and looked younger they told him to come back when 17, he did. The war was just over but he went in anyway.

As ive said, these men, not children, go through Iraq to come to Europe, so they could have joined their forces fighting to liberate their country, instead of running away,.

There were many who remained and took on the IS too, kudos to them.

magica wrote:They did too Syl, especially in the first world war.

My dad lied about his age to join up in the second world war.  He was 15 and looked younger they told him to come back when 17, he did. The war was just over but he went in anyway.

As ive said, these men, not children, go through Iraq to come to Europe, so they could have joined their forces fighting to liberate their country, instead of running away,.

There were many who remained and took on the IS too, kudos to them.  

Someone mentioned kids can look older than their years...yes of course they can.
But back in the first 2 world wars kids were working full time with big responsibilities when they were 14 and 15, so they seemed older.

This lying bastard in op is 22!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:This lying bastard in op is 22!!!

What a disgusting specimen you are, you do not display the traits of a human being let alone someone who claims to be British, I would remove British citizenship for types like yourself, that's if you even are British, you don't deserve to live in a civilised nation.

This young person has known nothing but death, conflict and war, war that we in the west have manufactured, its 15years since the recent conflict started, his brother was murdered by people smugglers trying to make his way out of that hell.

300,000 economic migrants are given free movement here to keep the wages of British workers down, and you whine like a bitch about 300 young people who've travelled here from some worn torn shit hole of our making.

The point is that we're supposed to be letting children in, and if he's 22 he's not a child.

He has however stolen the place of a child.....a young abandoned child that could now be living a better life.

Syl wrote:He has however stolen the place of a child.....a young abandoned child that could now be living a better life.

This is true and cannot be denied, but!

Could you send him back?

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:He has however stolen the place of a child.....a young abandoned child that could now be living a better life.

This is true and cannot be denied, but!

Could you send him back?

I honestly don't know.....initial thought was Yes, but if he has settled here...probably not..
I would however bring in checks to ensure the people who are claiming to be under 16, if there is doubt .. really are.

Ive always wondered at the people who's job it is, to send people back to their hell-hole countries. I bet it's a very emotional job. I couldn't do it in a million years.

eddie wrote:Ive always wondered at the people who's job it is, to send people back to their hell-hole countries. I bet it's a very emotional job. I couldn't do it in a million years.

I guess if there are only so many places you have to just follow the criteria.
I would hate to be the one to pick out 300 children from a God forsaken hell hole though....it would be like playing God.

Syl wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

It seems you aren't getting the point Syl.  

You think the male refugees should stay and fight suggesting its what British men did voluntarily while ignoring the fact that for the most part they actually had little choice in the matter.  Arrest, imprisonment or even execution awaited those who defied conscription or who went awol.

Underage kids fighting wars is a side issue, unless you think the Syrian government should be forcing 14 year olds to fight?

I don't agree with you so I'm not "getting the point?"
.
My original point was when Scrat posted a picture of the devastation of war in Afghanistan I posted one that was almost identical of England when we were at war.
Our men fought, they didn't leave their wives and kids behind to seek a better life for themselves elsewhere.


Who said anything about forcing underage kids to fight....I said thousands of British kids lied about their age in order to fight....don't try to twist words.

They had little choice Syl, that is the point. There is actually no way of knowing what they would have done had there been no conscription. The people from Syria do have a choice and they choose not to remain in a hell hole and fight and besides who exactly are they supposed to fight for...or against?


I didn't try to twist your words, i said underage kids fighting is a side issue. It isn't particularly relevant unless you would suggest the Syrian government force underage kids to fight.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

This is true and cannot be denied, but!

Could you send him back?

I honestly don't know.....initial thought was Yes, but if he has settled here...probably not..
I would however bring in checks to ensure the people who are claiming to be under 16, if there is doubt .. really are.

Attempts to assess age with X-ray scans of teeth or wrists are doomed to failure, according to work to be published in the British Medical Bulletin. The fundamental flaw with such tests is that, because children grow at widely different rates, skeletal maturity shown on X-rays – which is used to gauge age – doesn’t necessarily match chronological age. Teenagers can have adult bone structure as early as 15 or later than 20, says study author Tim Cole at University College London (UCL). He says X-rays can provide the wrong answer about whether someone is under or over 18 up to a third of the time.

Dental scans are also used to determine the maturity of wisdom teeth. These can reach full maturity as early as age 15, as late as 25, or in some cases never fully develop at all.

In wrist scans, age is estimated by looking at 20 or so bones initially separated by cartilage, but which progressively move closer to one another until they fuse in the mature wrist. The reference used for this test is a 1959 atlas compiled for doctors to assess healthy bone development, not age. It includes 1000 X-ray images of wrists of white middle-class American children, and the fully mature wrist of a 19-year-old. Yet wrists can be fully mature in children as young as 15, says Cole. A rival atlas compiled a few years later indicates a mean chronological age for wrist maturity of 17.6 years – give or take 1.3 years. So most “children” have “adult” wrists before 18.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428644-300-with-no-paper-trail-can-science-determine-age/

Spindleshanks wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't agree with you so I'm not "getting the point?"
.
My original point was when Scrat posted a picture of the devastation of war in Afghanistan I posted one that was almost identical of England when we were at war.
Our men fought, they didn't leave their wives and kids behind to seek a better life for themselves elsewhere.


Who said anything about forcing underage kids to fight....I said thousands of British kids lied about their age in order to fight....don't try to twist words.

They had little choice Syl, that is the point.  There is actually no way of knowing what they would have done had there been no conscription.  The people from Syria do have a choice and they choose not to remain in a hell hole and fight and besides who exactly are they supposed to fight for...or against?


I didn't try to twist your words, i said underage kids fighting is a side issue.  It isn't particularly relevant unless you would suggest the Syrian government force underage kids to fight.

In a war situation I suppose the choice is either fight or flee. If they choose to flee (in their thousands) usually without the women and children, it's not surprising that people mention it really is it?

Would I force the underage kids to fight in Syria? I abhor any sort of fighting.....if I had my way everyone would be forced to put down their arms and fight their case verbally not physically....unfortunately that has never happened and it never will.
It'll probably only end when some despotic megalomaniac pushes a button and the whole world gets annihilated.

Syl wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

They had little choice Syl, that is the point.  There is actually no way of knowing what they would have done had there been no conscription.  The people from Syria do have a choice and they choose not to remain in a hell hole and fight and besides who exactly are they supposed to fight for...or against?


I didn't try to twist your words, i said underage kids fighting is a side issue.  It isn't particularly relevant unless you would suggest the Syrian government force underage kids to fight.

In a war situation I suppose the choice is either fight or flee. If they choose to flee (in their thousands) usually without the women and children, it's not surprising that people mention it really is it?

Would I force the underage kids to fight in Syria? I abhor any sort of fighting.....if I had my way everyone would be forced to put down their arms and fight their case verbally not physically....unfortunately that has never happened and it never will.
It'll probably only end when some despotic megalomaniac pushes a button and the whole world gets annihilated.

I read somewhere that many of them get out of Syria with their families and leave them in relative 'safety' in a refugee centre. They then make the often perilous journey alone, find somewhere to settle, get a job and a place to live and then bring the family.

You can hardly blame them if they either can't afford to take the whole family at the same time or choose not to take the wife and kids with them, especially if they are making that all too deadly sea crossing where so many people, adults and kids have lost their lives.

I think it must be heartbreaking to be in that situation.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

This is true and cannot be denied, but!

Could you send him back?

I honestly don't know.....initial thought was Yes, but if he has settled here...probably not..
I would however bring in checks to ensure the people who are claiming to be under 16, if there is doubt .. really are.

Attempts to assess age with X-ray scans of teeth or wrists are doomed to failure, according to work to be published  in the British Medical Bulletin. The fundamental flaw with such tests is that, because children grow at widely different rates, skeletal maturity shown on X-rays – which is used to gauge age – doesn’t necessarily match chronological age. Teenagers can have adult bone structure as early as 15 or later than 20, says study author Tim Cole at University College London (UCL). He says X-rays can provide the wrong answer about whether someone is under or over 18 up to a third of the time.

Dental scans are also used to determine the maturity of wisdom teeth. These can reach full maturity as early as age 15, as late as 25, or in some cases never fully develop at all.

In wrist scans, age is estimated by looking at 20 or so bones initially separated by cartilage, but which progressively move closer to one another until they fuse in the mature wrist. The reference used for this test is a 1959 atlas compiled for doctors to assess healthy bone development, not age. It includes 1000 X-ray images of wrists of white middle-class American children, and the fully mature wrist of a 19-year-old. Yet wrists can be fully mature in children as young as 15, says Cole. A rival atlas compiled a few years later indicates a mean chronological age for wrist maturity of 17.6 years – give or take 1.3 years. So most “children” have “adult” wrists before 18.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428644-300-with-no-paper-trail-can-science-determine-age/

so hey...we just let em all in regardless
we cant check their age seemingly
we cant check their backgrounds and most have forged/stolen papers anyway or have oh so conveniently "lost them"


but thats ok.....

and yet...here we are this prime example of clearly a criminal

attempting fraud to gain entry.....so clearly of criminal intent and mind....and all those of a ceratain pursuasion are falling over themselves to get him here, moreover they would put him into a school next to YOUR daughter......with no background check (bear in mind he's REALLY 22) why do we have DBS checks on adults in schools???

oh I forgot it doesnt apply if you are a "protected species"

Lord Foul wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Attempts to assess age with X-ray scans of teeth or wrists are doomed to failure, according to work to be published  in the British Medical Bulletin. The fundamental flaw with such tests is that, because children grow at widely different rates, skeletal maturity shown on X-rays – which is used to gauge age – doesn’t necessarily match chronological age. Teenagers can have adult bone structure as early as 15 or later than 20, says study author Tim Cole at University College London (UCL). He says X-rays can provide the wrong answer about whether someone is under or over 18 up to a third of the time.

Dental scans are also used to determine the maturity of wisdom teeth. These can reach full maturity as early as age 15, as late as 25, or in some cases never fully develop at all.

In wrist scans, age is estimated by looking at 20 or so bones initially separated by cartilage, but which progressively move closer to one another until they fuse in the mature wrist. The reference used for this test is a 1959 atlas compiled for doctors to assess healthy bone development, not age. It includes 1000 X-ray images of wrists of white middle-class American children, and the fully mature wrist of a 19-year-old. Yet wrists can be fully mature in children as young as 15, says Cole. A rival atlas compiled a few years later indicates a mean chronological age for wrist maturity of 17.6 years – give or take 1.3 years. So most “children” have “adult” wrists before 18.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428644-300-with-no-paper-trail-can-science-determine-age/

so hey...we just let em all in regardless
we cant check their age seemingly
we cant check their backgrounds and most have forged/stolen papers anyway or have oh so conveniently "lost them"


but thats ok.....

and yet...here we are this prime example of clearly a criminal

attempting fraud to gain entry.....so clearly of criminal intent and mind....and all those of a ceratain pursuasion are falling over themselves to get him here, moreover they would put him into a school next to YOUR daughter......with no background check (bear in mind he's REALLY 22)  why do we have DBS checks on adults in schools???

oh I forgot it doesnt apply if you are a "protected species"

If you bothered to read the link you would have seen it goes on to say this

What technique would be more effective? Aynsley-Green and his team say that the best hope is in detailed assessments of physical and psychological development by specially trained paediatricians, skilled in combining different aspects of growth to make an informed estimate of age. It is crucial to chart a new way forward, he says: “Governments must stop believing that there is a ‘scientific’ test that will tell precisely the age of individuals claiming to be children but without papers to prove it.”

Spindleshanks wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Attempts to assess age with X-ray scans of teeth or wrists are doomed to failure, according to work to be published  in the British Medical Bulletin. The fundamental flaw with such tests is that, because children grow at widely different rates, skeletal maturity shown on X-rays – which is used to gauge age – doesn’t necessarily match chronological age. Teenagers can have adult bone structure as early as 15 or later than 20, says study author Tim Cole at University College London (UCL). He says X-rays can provide the wrong answer about whether someone is under or over 18 up to a third of the time.

Dental scans are also used to determine the maturity of wisdom teeth. These can reach full maturity as early as age 15, as late as 25, or in some cases never fully develop at all.

In wrist scans, age is estimated by looking at 20 or so bones initially separated by cartilage, but which progressively move closer to one another until they fuse in the mature wrist. The reference used for this test is a 1959 atlas compiled for doctors to assess healthy bone development, not age. It includes 1000 X-ray images of wrists of white middle-class American children, and the fully mature wrist of a 19-year-old. Yet wrists can be fully mature in children as young as 15, says Cole. A rival atlas compiled a few years later indicates a mean chronological age for wrist maturity of 17.6 years – give or take 1.3 years. So most “children” have “adult” wrists before 18.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428644-300-with-no-paper-trail-can-science-determine-age/

so hey...we just let em all in regardless
we cant check their age seemingly
we cant check their backgrounds and most have forged/stolen papers anyway or have oh so conveniently "lost them"


but thats ok.....

and yet...here we are this prime example of clearly a criminal

attempting fraud to gain entry.....so clearly of criminal intent and mind....and all those of a ceratain pursuasion are falling over themselves to get him here, moreover they would put him into a school next to YOUR daughter......with no background check (bear in mind he's REALLY 22)  why do we have DBS checks on adults in schools???

oh I forgot it doesnt apply if you are a "protected species"

If you bothered to read the link you would have seen it goes on to say this

What technique would be more effective? Aynsley-Green and his team say that the best hope is in detailed assessments of physical and psychological development by specially trained paediatricians, skilled in combining different aspects of growth to make an informed estimate of age. It is crucial to chart a new way forward, he says: “Governments must stop believing that there is a ‘scientific’ test that will tell precisely the age of individuals claiming to be children but without papers to prove it.”

and you STILL wouldnt be satisfied

you would STILL claim it was flawed
you would STILL be in favour of letting them in regardless and unchecked

see http://www.newsfixboard.com/t6820p700-the-picture-jokes-thread#351856

Lord Foul wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

If you bothered to read the link you would have seen it goes on to say this

What technique would be more effective? Aynsley-Green and his team say that the best hope is in detailed assessments of physical and psychological development by specially trained paediatricians, skilled in combining different aspects of growth to make an informed estimate of age. It is crucial to chart a new way forward, he says: “Governments must stop believing that there is a ‘scientific’ test that will tell precisely the age of individuals claiming to be children but without papers to prove it.”

and you STILL wouldnt be satisfied

you would STILL claim it was flawed
you would STILL be in favour of letting them in regardless and unchecked

see http://www.newsfixboard.com/t6820p700-the-picture-jokes-thread#351856

Now who is putting words into peoples mouths.

I've expressed no comment about the ages of the people who have been allowed to come here.

true...but....
you clearly are in support of the person of interest in this case so..........

scrat wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:This lying bastard in op is 22!!!

What a disgusting specimen you are, you do not display the traits of a human being let alone someone who claims to be British, I would remove British citizenship for types like yourself, that's if you even are British, you don't deserve to live in a civilised nation.

This young person has known nothing but death, conflict and war, war that we in the west have manufactured, its 15years since the recent conflict started, his brother was murdered by people smugglers trying to make his way out of that hell.

300,000 economic migrants are given free movement here to keep the wages of British workers down, and you whine like a bitch about 300 young people who've travelled here from some worn torn shit hole of our making.

He enrolled at kabul university 3 years ago...


He's a liar and a cheat and I don't believe anything he says about anything...

Lord Foul wrote:true...but....
you clearly are in support of the person of interest in this case so..........

If this to me i am in support of no one. I'm merely highlighting the issues regarding how difficult it is to assess age using medical means. X rays, dental assessments etc.

Even looking at someone and trying to guess age is seriously flawed when you consider that people can look a lot younger or older than they really are.