Forced child migration 'bigger abuse scandal than Savile'

by Guest Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:03 am

First topic message reminder :

The forced migration of UK children overseas was a bigger sex abuse scandal than that of Jimmy Savile, ex-prime minister Gordon Brown has said. Mr Brown told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that the 2,000 surviving British child migrants who suffered abuse should be compensated. He said the mass transportation of 130,000 British children overseas was "government-enforced trafficking". Across 50 years, the children were sent to ex-colonies such as Australia. The transportation programme began in the 1920s, partly to ease the population of the UK's orphanages in the years after the First World War, and to give "lost" children the chance of a new life in Britain's colonies.

But children continued to be be sent abroad until 1974.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40669699

by HoratioTarr Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:The ones to blame for any abuse are those who actually did the abuse...

If it is the case that any of the UK officials at the time who were responsible for deciding the sending abroad of any of these children, were intentionally doing so for any of them to be abused, then of course these individuals would also be to blame...

I made this post yesterday...

How am I making excuses for anything...!?

If anyone has any evidence that the latter is true... then show it and name those responsible...!?

I've never known a place like this for people twisting things to create aggro. Honestly, does it really matter if we don't all agree. Doesn't matter if you say the UK is equally to blame, that's not good enough either.

by Guest Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:50 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:The ones to blame for any abuse are those who actually did the abuse...

If it is the case that any of the UK officials at the time who were responsible for deciding the sending abroad of any of these children, were intentionally doing so for any of them to be abused, then of course these individuals would also be to blame...

I made this post yesterday...

How am I making excuses for anything...!?

If anyone has any evidence that the latter is true... then show it and name those responsible...!?

I made this today

What sickens me with the poor replies here, is that none of them factor the history of this country and why children were being taken into care. Due to the fact many of them were from single or unwed mothers. Where a country had a duty of care to look after such single or unwed mothers from deprived backgrounds. They were instead stigmatized by society. Many unwed mothers being sent to religious institutions. Many of which which help traffic children from theirs to religious institutions abroad..Which were nothing more than pedophile rings. Many of these children were lied to and classed as orphans. Which became known by both British and Australian Governments. Who did nothing.

So people are going on about why so many of these children were in care? Well it was the system and society that ensured many did. Where as seen many were told their parents were dead, when in fact many were not dead. About a 1,000 have been reunited with their biological families. Only Horatio pointed some of this out and nobody took note (as she clearly must have read the articles on this). I thought this would lead to a better understanding and 3 pages later with have those claiming they were off to a better life, when they were denied one here in the first place. Instead we had appalling claims as if these families were worth having, not having the first clue on how appalling unwed and single mothers were once treated. Stigmatized by society. Showing some did not understand a single point that Horatio was making and even Horatio did not challenge this back from Rags, which was poor. As they were more interested in defending each other from my criticism.

That was really pathetic.

Why? Because it shows many did not read the articles and were more intent on white washing any blame for the part of the British Governments had in this or maintaining the same petty issues they have with posters.

by Guest Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:51 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I made this post yesterday...

How am I making excuses for anything...!?

If anyone has any evidence that the latter is true... then show it and name those responsible...!?

I've never known a place like this for people twisting things to create aggro. Honestly, does it really matter if we don't all agree. Doesn't matter if you say the UK is equally to blame, that's not good enough either.

Well this is article about the Uk and its part played in this

Not sure how you failed to grasp that really

by Tommy Monk Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:08 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I made this post yesterday...

How am I making excuses for anything...!?

If anyone has any evidence that the latter is true... then show it and name those responsible...!?

I made this today

What sickens me with the poor replies here, is that none of them factor the history of this country and why children were being taken into care. Due to the fact many of them were from single or unwed mothers. Where a country had a duty of care to look after such single or unwed mothers from deprived backgrounds. They were instead stigmatized by society. Many unwed mothers being sent to religious institutions. Many of which which help traffic children from theirs to religious institutions abroad..Which were nothing more than pedophile rings. Many of these children were lied to and classed as orphans. Which became known by both British and Australian Governments. Who did nothing.

So people are going on about why so many of these children were in care? Well it was the system and society that ensured many did. Where as seen many were told their parents were dead, when in fact many were not dead. About a 1,000 have been reunited with their biological families. Only Horatio pointed some of this out and nobody took note (as she clearly must have read the articles on this). I thought this would lead to a better understanding and 3 pages later with have those claiming they were off to a better life, when they were denied one here in the first place. Instead we had appalling claims as if these families were worth having, not having the first clue on how appalling unwed and single mothers were once treated. Stigmatized by society. Showing some did not understand a single point that Horatio was making and even Horatio did not challenge this back from Rags, which was poor. As they were more interested in defending each other from my criticism.

That was really pathetic.

Why? Because it shows many did not read the articles and were more intent on white washing any blame for the part of the British Governments had in this or maintaining the same petty issues they have with posters.

They werent being 'taken'... they were either 'given' over (abandoned) by parent/s... or being looked after by the state because there was no one else around at the time who was willing to look after them...!!!

by Guest Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:11 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I made this today

What sickens me with the poor replies here, is that none of them factor the history of this country and why children were being taken into care. Due to the fact many of them were from single or unwed mothers. Where a country had a duty of care to look after such single or unwed mothers from deprived backgrounds. They were instead stigmatized by society. Many unwed mothers being sent to religious institutions. Many of which which help traffic children from theirs to religious institutions abroad..Which were nothing more than pedophile rings. Many of these children were lied to and classed as orphans. Which became known by both British and Australian Governments. Who did nothing.

So people are going on about why so many of these children were in care? Well it was the system and society that ensured many did. Where as seen many were told their parents were dead, when in fact many were not dead. About a 1,000 have been reunited with their biological families. Only Horatio pointed some of this out and nobody took note (as she clearly must have read the articles on this). I thought this would lead to a better understanding and 3 pages later with have those claiming they were off to a better life, when they were denied one here in the first place. Instead we had appalling claims as if these families were worth having, not having the first clue on how appalling unwed and single mothers were once treated. Stigmatized by society. Showing some did not understand a single point that Horatio was making and even Horatio did not challenge this back from Rags, which was poor. As they were more interested in defending each other from my criticism.

That was really pathetic.

Why? Because it shows many did not read the articles and were more intent on white washing any blame for the part of the British Governments had in this or maintaining the same petty issues they have with posters.

They werent being 'taken'... they were either 'given' over (abandoned) by parent/s... or being looked after by the state because there was no one else around at the time who was willing to look after them...!!!

No the state and society stigmatized them due to being single mothers or unwed, plus their levels of poverty. Meaning the nation did little to support them. Where even some were sent into religious institutions and then had their babies taken away. Its an appalling part of Uk history and formed fundamentally from a poor Christian ethos. The state should have been looking after the single and unwed Mothers raising their children. Instead they treated them disgustingly.

by Guest Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:30 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

They werent being 'taken'... they were either 'given' over (abandoned) by parent/s... or being looked after by the state because there was no one else around at the time who was willing to look after them...!!!

No the state and society stigmatized them due to being single mothers or unwed, plus their levels of poverty. Meaning the nation did little to support them. Where even some were sent into religious institutions and then had their babies taken away. Its an appalling part of Uk history and formed fundamentally from a poor Christian ethos. The state should have been looking after the single and unwed Mothers raising their children. Instead they treated them disgustingly.

More than 130,000 children were sent to a “better life” in former colonies, mainly Australia and Canada, from the 1920s to 1970s under the child migrant programme . The children, aged between three and 14, were almost invariably from deprived backgrounds and already in some form of social or charitable care. It was believed, they would lead happier lives.

Charities such as Barnardo’s and the Fairbridge Society, the Anglican and Catholic churches and local authorities helped with the organisation of the emigration.

Once there, the children were often told they were orphans to better facilitate their fresh start. The parents – many of them single mothers forced to give up their child for adoption because of poverty or social stigma – believed this was giving them best chance in life, though often did not have details of where their offspring were sent to. The reality, for some of those children, was a childhood of servitude and hard labour at foster homes: on remote farms, at state-run orphanages and church-run institutions. They were often separated from siblings. Some were subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/27/britains-child-migrant-programme-why-130000-children-were-shipped-abroad

The head of the Catholic church in England and Wales has apologised for its part in the” hurt” caused to young unmarried women who say they were felt pressured into handing over their babies for adoption in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Cardinal Vincent Nichols acknowledged the “the grief and pain caused by the giving up of a child through adoption”, adding: “Sadly for unmarried mothers, adoption was considered to be in the best interests of the mother and child because of the associated stigma and the lack of support for lone parents.”

A documentary telling the stories of some of the women – who gave up an estimated half a million children during a period when the Catholic church, the Church of England and the Salvation Army ran “mother and baby homes” and adoption agencies in the UK – is to be broadcast on ITV on 9 November.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/catholic-church-apologises-for-role-in-forced-adoptions-over-30-year-period

The transportation scheme began in the 1920s, in part to east the population of UK orphanages int he years after the First World War, but also to give "lost" children a fresh start in the colonies. But many children, some of whom were forcibly taken from their parents and were not told where they were going, found a life of hardship and depravity once they arrived as many were forced to work on farms and were subject to severe sexual and physical abuse.

One of the surviving victims, David Hill, waived his right to anonymity earlier this year to urge the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, to "name the villains" responsible for the policy. Mr Hill, who later became the managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABC), later uncovered documents shown to the inquiry which said a fact-finding mission was set from the UK to Australia in 1956 after people raise concerns about the policy.

As a result, a blacklist of institutions which were mistreating the children was drawn up by the British government but it was never enforced due to political pressure from the some of the charities and agencies involved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-jimmy-savile-forced-transportation-deportation-to-australia-gordon-brown-a7852041.html

by eddie Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:34 pm

I'm glad to see the thread back on topic. I tried to get a grasp on some opinions but it turned into a shitfuckfest.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:48 pm

Can you show some examples and statistics to back up your claims there didge...?

And you never heard of any of these...?

Family Allowances Act (1945) - 5s a week for each child after the first.
National Insurance Act (1945) - unemployment pay for six months and sick pay for as long as you were sick.
National Insurance - Industrial Injuries Act (1946) - extra benefits for people injured at work.
National Assistance Act (1948) - benefits for anybody in need. 'The Times' described it as: 'the last defence against extreme poverty'.

Or any of this...

Town and Country Planning Act (1947) - set a target of building 300,000 new houses a year and 1.25 million council houses were built between 1945 and 1951. It also defined green belt land that had to be kept rural.
New Towns Act (1946) - authorised the building of new towns at places such as Stevenage, Basildon, Newton Aycliffe and Peterlee.
Children's Act (1948) - required councils to provide good housing and care for all children 'deprived of a normal home life'.

...!!!???

by Guest Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:50 pm

Yes tommy, read below

More than 130,000 children were sent to a “better life” in former colonies, mainly Australia and Canada, from the 1920s to 1970s under the child migrant programme . The children, aged between three and 14, were almost invariably from deprived backgrounds and already in some form of social or charitable care. It was believed, they would lead happier lives.

Charities such as Barnardo’s and the Fairbridge Society, the Anglican and Catholic churches and local authorities helped with the organisation of the emigration.

Once there, the children were often told they were orphans to better facilitate their fresh start. The parents – many of them single mothers forced to give up their child for adoption because of poverty or social stigma – believed this was giving them best chance in life, though often did not have details of where their offspring were sent to. The reality, for some of those children, was a childhood of servitude and hard labour at foster homes: on remote farms, at state-run orphanages and church-run institutions. They were often separated from siblings. Some were subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/27/britains-child-migrant-programme-why-130000-children-were-shipped-abroad

The head of the Catholic church in England and Wales has apologised for its part in the” hurt” caused to young unmarried women who say they were felt pressured into handing over their babies for adoption in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Cardinal Vincent Nichols acknowledged the “the grief and pain caused by the giving up of a child through adoption”, adding: “Sadly for unmarried mothers, adoption was considered to be in the best interests of the mother and child because of the associated stigma and the lack of support for lone parents.”

A documentary telling the stories of some of the women – who gave up an estimated half a million children during a period when the Catholic church, the Church of England and the Salvation Army ran “mother and baby homes” and adoption agencies in the UK – is to be broadcast on ITV on 9 November.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/catholic-church-apologises-for-role-in-forced-adoptions-over-30-year-period

The transportation scheme began in the 1920s, in part to east the population of UK orphanages int he years after the First World War, but also to give "lost" children a fresh start in the colonies. But many children, some of whom were forcibly taken from their parents and were not told where they were going, found a life of hardship and depravity once they arrived as many were forced to work on farms and were subject to severe sexual and physical abuse.

One of the surviving victims, David Hill, waived his right to anonymity earlier this year to urge the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, to "name the villains" responsible for the policy. Mr Hill, who later became the managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABC), later uncovered documents shown to the inquiry which said a fact-finding mission was set from the UK to Australia in 1956 after people raise concerns about the policy.

As a result, a blacklist of institutions which were mistreating the children was drawn up by the British government but it was never enforced due to political pressure from the some of the charities and agencies involved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-jimmy-savile-forced-transportation-deportation-to-australia-gordon-brown-a7852041.html

[/quote]

by Guest Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:15 am

Some more info:

Only the most visible, vulnerable cases – the unsupported women – were ruthlessly singled out for scapegoating, since they had been seen as a drain on the parish purse ever since the first Poor Law in 1576. And when the earliest form of social insurance finally came into effect in 1925, it was granted to widowed mothers but not divorced or unmarried ones – a malicious piece of legislation clearly intended to deter women with unconventional lives from living off the state.

But although the 1948 National Assistance Act, which replaced the old Poor Law, finally gave unmarried mothers the same (meagre) government aid as widowed mothers, there were still huge practical difficulties for go-it-alone mothers. Until the 1977 Housing Act, it was almost impossible for lone mothers to get a council flat since, as single people, they had fewer 'points' than couples.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/sin-and-the-single-mother-the-history-of-lone-parenthood-7782370.html

by JulesV Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:36 pm

Thorin you were complaining of ''ganging up'' in this thread. (I think I saw you use the term earlier but I cannot see it now. Were some posts deleted?)

Wait a minute, 3 or 4 people argue with you - and you are wailing about ''ganging up''??? Are you for real? YOU had no qualms or conscience about joining a huge gang TWICE that size in attacking me, in fact you were one of the ring leaders. Even tho the issues had nowt to do with you, you made it all about you, and were happy to attack me even tho you could see several others already attacking me. You did not give a flying SHIT about my feelings.

I can't believe you're moaning about getting a small dose of what you dish out so generously to others. I am quite used to gang attacks cos I don't do group think, or borg think, I am always willing to post my own individual opinions and be dammed.

So I shrugged and put the whole unpleasant matter behind me. I suggest you do the same here.

by Guest Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:12 pm

eddie wrote:I'm glad to see the thread back on topic. I tried to get a grasp on some opinions but it turned into a shitfuckfest.

You spoke too soon it seems Eddie

by Tommy Monk Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:45 pm

Quote from article Didge posted...

'...The children, aged between three and 14, were almost invariably from deprived backgrounds and already in some form of social or charitable care.

It was believed, they would lead happier lives....'

by Guest Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Quote from article Didge posted...

'...The children, aged between three and 14, were almost invariably from deprived backgrounds and already in some form of social or charitable care.

It was believed, they would lead happier lives....'

And why were many in care or charitable care Tommy?

The facts have been provided for you

Believed you say?

So you base this on faith?

Hence the fuck up.

Wanna try again or are you going to be selective as per usual on singular points?

by Tommy Monk Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:14 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Quote from article Didge posted...

'...The children, aged between three and 14, were almost invariably from deprived backgrounds and already in some form of social or charitable care.

It was believed, they would lead happier lives....'

And why were many in care or charitable care Tommy?

The facts have been provided for you

Believed you say?

So you base this on faith?

Hence the fuck up.

Wanna try again or are you going to be selective as per usual on singular points?

Why not give us a complete breakdown of stats...?

And stop trying to conflate issues...!

by Guest Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:18 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

And why were many in care or charitable care Tommy?

The facts have been provided for you

Believed you say?

So you base this on faith?

Hence the fuck up.

Wanna try again or are you going to be selective as per usual on singular points?

Why not give us a complete breakdown of stats...?

And stop trying to conflate issues...!

I gave you stats Tommy

You just look very silly over them

by Guest Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:21 pm

So what you have to first prove Tommy is that single mothers got social housing over married couples.

Can you do that under 1948 National Assistance Act?
Or that they could sustain themselves and their children on the same money as widowed mothers?

You see you looked a right wally just posting up acts and never understanding the history at the time

by Guest Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:49 pm

I guess this is what it feels like to watch paint dry, waiting for Tommy to present facts. Smile

Night everyone

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:18 am

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Why not give us a complete breakdown of stats...?

And stop trying to conflate issues...!

I gave you stats Tommy

You just look very silly over them

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:20 am

Like I said, its like watching paint dry, but in slow motion, if you can imagine that. When Tommy is in stuck mode.

So I will repeat

So what you have to first prove Tommy is that single mothers got social housing over married couples.

Can you do that under 1948 National Assistance Act?
Or that they could sustain themselves and their children on the same money as widowed mothers?

Can you then ignore the stigma of that society then?
Which I pointed out to you and you avoided like the plague?

You see you looked a right wally just posting up acts and never understanding the history at the time

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:21 am

Why not give us a complete breakdown of stats...?

And stop trying to conflate issues...!

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:24 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Why not give us a complete breakdown of stats...?

And stop trying to conflate issues...!

What stats would you like Tommy?

What issues? Why are even stats needed here based off historical facts on unwed or single mothers on housing?

You are asking questions based off no substance.

It seems you are really clutching at straws

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:29 am

So first point Tommy

Were single mothers given priority on housing or even given social housing on equivalency with those married?

Yes or no in the 1920's?

Yes or no in the 1930's?

Yes or no in the 1940's?

Yes or no in the 1950's?

Yes or no in the 1960's?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:38 am

Still waiting for Didge to show us evidence that any uk officials sent any of these children anywhere with the intent for any to be abused...!?

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:42 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Still waiting for Didge to show us evidence that any uk officials sent any of these children anywhere with the intent for any to be abused...!?

Where did anyone claim they did Tommy?

Did Investigations happen Tommy though?

Yes?

Did they find evidence of physical abuse?

Yes

Did nothing happen off this Tommy?

No

Are you exonerating society and institutions forcing single mothers to give up their children?

Are you trying to claim many successive governments are innocent Tommy?

Still waiting for tommy to show otherwise, hence his massive desperation here.

Then explain how that makes any of the forced taking of children of unwed mothers okay Tommy?

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:53 am

Still waiting for Tommy to even make any point here, lol

Bless him

Night everyone.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:59 am

So... you are saying that there is no evidence that any uk officials sent any of these children anywhere with the intent for any to be abused...!?

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:03 am

Tommy Monk wrote:So... you are saying that there is no evidence that any uk officials sent any of these children anywhere with the intent for any to be abused...!?

I guess you never read the thread and evidence then Tommy

What was the fact finding mission in the 50's Tommy?

Let alone how that exonerates children being lied to and being forced from their mothers from a backward view and stance on society with unwed and single mothers.

Talk about avoiding the issue on both points.

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:06 am

Thorin wrote:Yes tommy, read below

More than 130,000 children were sent to a “better life” in former colonies, mainly Australia and Canada, from the 1920s to 1970s under the child migrant programme . The children, aged between three and 14, were almost invariably from deprived backgrounds and already in some form of social or charitable care. It was believed, they would lead happier lives.

Charities such as Barnardo’s and the Fairbridge Society, the Anglican and Catholic churches and local authorities helped with the organisation of the emigration.

Once there, the children were often told they were orphans to better facilitate their fresh start. The parents – many of them single mothers forced to give up their child for adoption because of poverty or social stigma – believed this was giving them best chance in life, though often did not have details of where their offspring were sent to. The reality, for some of those children, was a childhood of servitude and hard labour at foster homes: on remote farms, at state-run orphanages and church-run institutions. They were often separated from siblings. Some were subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/27/britains-child-migrant-programme-why-130000-children-were-shipped-abroad

The head of the Catholic church in England and Wales has apologised for its part in the” hurt” caused to young unmarried women who say they were felt pressured into handing over their babies for adoption in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Cardinal Vincent Nichols acknowledged the “the grief and pain caused by the giving up of a child through adoption”, adding: “Sadly for unmarried mothers, adoption was considered to be in the best interests of the mother and child because of the associated stigma and the lack of support for lone parents.”

A documentary telling the stories of some of the women – who gave up an estimated half a million children during a period when the Catholic church, the Church of England and the Salvation Army ran “mother and baby homes” and adoption agencies in the UK – is to be broadcast on ITV on 9 November.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/catholic-church-apologises-for-role-in-forced-adoptions-over-30-year-period

The transportation scheme began in the 1920s, in part to east the population of UK orphanages int he years after the First World War, but also to give "lost" children a fresh start in the colonies. But many children, some of whom were forcibly taken from their parents and were not told where they were going, found a life of hardship and depravity once they arrived as many were forced to work on farms and were subject to severe sexual and physical abuse.

One of the surviving victims, David Hill, waived his right to anonymity earlier this year to urge the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, to "name the villains" responsible for the policy. Mr Hill, who later became the managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABC), later uncovered documents shown to the inquiry which said a fact-finding mission was set from the UK to Australia in 1956 after people raise concerns about the policy.

As a result, a blacklist of institutions which were mistreating the children was drawn up by the British government but it was never enforced due to political pressure from the some of the charities and agencies involved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-jimmy-savile-forced-transportation-deportation-to-australia-gordon-brown-a7852041.html

I really think Tommy needs to go to specsavers

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:06 am

Night everyone

by Raggamuffin Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:14 am

So were these children all from single mothers?

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:So were these children all from single mothers?

Does it say all of them, or most of them?

by Raggamuffin Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:48 pm

It doesn't say any of them were, so this particular discussion is not really valid.

by 'Wolfie Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:55 pm

WHY is Tommy so earnestly acting as the apologist for British "establishment" paedophile rings, and those criminal elements in the various government departments, bureaucracies and charity groups that were pandering to them ???

Truly sad, and a tad unsettling, that..

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:56 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't say any of them were, so this particular discussion is not really valid.

Really?

It says most of them were single moms.

You need to show the media articles are wrong.

Over to you

Once there, the children were often told they were orphans to better facilitate their fresh start. The parents – many of them single mothers forced to give up their child for adoption because of poverty or social stigma – believed this was giving them best chance in life, though often did not have details of where their offspring were sent to. The reality, for some of those children, was a childhood of servitude and hard labour at foster homes: on remote farms, at state-run orphanages and church-run institutions. They were often separated from siblings. Some were subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/27/britains-child-migrant-programme-why-130000-children-were-shipped-abroad

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:07 pm

Thorin wrote:

More than 130,000 children were sent to a “better life” in former colonies, mainly Australia and Canada, from the 1920s to 1970s under the child migrant programme . The children, aged between three and 14, were almost invariably from deprived backgrounds and already in some form of social or charitable care. It was believed, they would lead happier lives.

Charities such as Barnardo’s and the Fairbridge Society, the Anglican and Catholic churches and local authorities helped with the organisation of the emigration.

Once there, the children were often told they were orphans to better facilitate their fresh start. The parents – many of them single mothers forced to give up their child for adoption because of poverty or social stigma – believed this was giving them best chance in life, though often did not have details of where their offspring were sent to. The reality, for some of those children, was a childhood of servitude and hard labour at foster homes: on remote farms, at state-run orphanages and church-run institutions. They were often separated from siblings. Some were subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/27/britains-child-migrant-programme-why-130000-children-were-shipped-abroad

The head of the Catholic church in England and Wales has apologised for its part in the” hurt” caused to young unmarried women who say they were felt pressured into handing over their babies for adoption in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Cardinal Vincent Nichols acknowledged the “the grief and pain caused by the giving up of a child through adoption”, adding: “Sadly for unmarried mothers, adoption was considered to be in the best interests of the mother and child because of the associated stigma and the lack of support for lone parents.”

A documentary telling the stories of some of the women – who gave up an estimated half a million children during a period when the Catholic church, the Church of England and the Salvation Army ran “mother and baby homes” and adoption agencies in the UK – is to be broadcast on ITV on 9 November.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/catholic-church-apologises-for-role-in-forced-adoptions-over-30-year-period

The transportation scheme began in the 1920s, in part to east the population of UK orphanages int he years after the First World War, but also to give "lost" children a fresh start in the colonies. But many children, some of whom were forcibly taken from their parents and were not told where they were going, found a life of hardship and depravity once they arrived as many were forced to work on farms and were subject to severe sexual and physical abuse.

One of the surviving victims, David Hill, waived his right to anonymity earlier this year to urge the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, to "name the villains" responsible for the policy. Mr Hill, who later became the managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABC), later uncovered documents shown to the inquiry which said a fact-finding mission was set from the UK to Australia in 1956 after people raise concerns about the policy.

As a result, a blacklist of institutions which were mistreating the children was drawn up by the British government but it was never enforced due to political pressure from the some of the charities and agencies involved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-jimmy-savile-forced-transportation-deportation-to-australia-gordon-brown-a7852041.html

Be easier if Rags just read the 3 links

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So... you are saying that there is no evidence that any uk officials sent any of these children anywhere with the intent for any to be abused...!?

And you havnt shown any statistics for how many children were in care each year, how many were sent abroad each year, or how many of those were given up by single mothers who 'felt pressured' by the catholic church to give them up...!?

All I see is an attempt to cast blame without evidence and to conflate other issues too...

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:So... you are saying that there is no evidence that any uk officials sent any of these children anywhere with the intent for any to be abused...!?

And you havnt shown any statistics for how many children were in care each year, how many were sent abroad each year, or how many of those were given up by single mothers who 'felt pressured' by the catholic church to give them up...!?

All I see is an attempt to cast blame without evidence and to conflate other issues too...

I have provided evidence.

You just want to bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

What part did you miss about the Catholic Church and Church of England's admission on this?

All I can see is you doing this.

Forced child migration 'bigger abuse scandal than Savile' - Page 4 Article-2525602-1A2B2A3600000578-553_634x408

Forced child migration 'bigger abuse scandal than Savile' - Page 4 Article-2525602-1A2B2A3600000578-553_634x408

Now I suggest you post up some evidence to back your claims

In your own time

by 'Wolfie Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:38 pm

Maybe one of those guilty bureaucrats or charity bosses was Tommy's grandfather or uncle...

"Establishment" figures in Britain, Australia and Canada are all doing backflips and contorting themselves to protect their own..

Slave labour, child theft, paedophile rings, the more it unfolds, the wider the webs.

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:45 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maybe one of those guilty bureaucrats or charity bosses was Tommy's grandfather or uncle...

"Establishment" figures in Britain, Australia and Canada are all doing backflips and contorting themselves to protect their own..

Slave labour, child theft, paedophile rings, the more it unfolds, the wider the webs.

That is a tad low to attack his relatives Wolf

Attack tommy's comments, that is fine, but to attack his family is out of order.

Now I agree that Tommy is coming out with the worst apologist bullshit, but leave the personal crap out of it.

Thanks

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:40 pm

Statistics please...?

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Statistics please...?

Already given

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:46 pm

The worst part of this is this.
If this was any Muslim charity or Muslim religious institution, Tommy would not even want evidence.

Here he has evidence and admission from Christian institutions and he wants stats, when they themselves provide them.

Hence why its easy to see why Tommy is a Closet Christian and why he never condemns, as an apologist

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:08 pm

The only figures given so far was that around 130,000 children were sent off abroad over a 50 year period... and most of these were early on during this time period because of the extremely high number of orphans having to be looked after because of losing parents in WW1 and WW2...

And still no evidence that any of the total 130,000 sent abroad were sent with any intention that they were to be abused, or sent with anything other than the intent that it was a great opportunity for a better life...!

That is why I'm asking you to provide some statistics to back up your conflated claims...!?

Oh... and... 'closet Christian'... most amusing...!!!

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The only figures given so far was that around 130,000 children were sent off abroad over a 50 year period... and most of these were early on during this time period because of the extremely high number of orphans having to be looked after because of losing parents in WW1 and WW2...

And still no evidence that any of the total 130,000 sent abroad were sent with any intention that they were to be abused, or sent with anything other than the intent that it was a great opportunity for a better life...!

That is why I'm asking you to provide some statistics to back up your conflated claims...!?

Oh... and... 'closet Christian'... most amusing...!!!

Most amusing

So half a million you just ignore then Tommy?

That is just by the religious institutions

I also gave you stats on single and unwed mothers after you posted up acts that did little for them and you still make excuses over how many suffered abused and were told their parents were dead

The only thing most amusing is your inability to post anything factual

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:21 pm

This is how you have to look at this.

Tommy does not believe this.

Neither did the Police or social services over grooming gangs

Can anyone see a connection here on how some do not believe girls?

Here we have Tommy not believe this

The very same as happened to the victims of Rochadale.

Its not even irony, its sickening

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:12 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:The only figures given so far was that around 130,000 children were sent off abroad over a 50 year period... and most of these were early on during this time period because of the extremely high number of orphans having to be looked after because of losing parents in WW1 and WW2...

And still no evidence that any of the total 130,000 sent abroad were sent with any intention that they were to be abused, or sent with anything other than the intent that it was a great opportunity for a better life...!

That is why I'm asking you to provide some statistics to back up your conflated claims...!?

Oh... and... 'closet Christian'... most amusing...!!!

Most amusing

So half a million you just ignore then Tommy?

That is just by the religious institutions

I also gave you stats on single and unwed mothers after you posted up acts that did little for them and you still make excuses over how many suffered abused and were told their parents were dead

The only thing most amusing is your inability to post anything factual

This is where you are conflating issues and numbers, dodge...

Only 130,000 over a 50 year period were sent abroad...

And you still havent even said...

1) How many were sent in each year compared to numbers being looked after etc...?

2) What % of those were subjected to any abuse...?

3) How many of the 130,000 were from single mothers...?

4) How many of these were forced to hand them over by christian religious groups...?

5) How many of the % of those who suffered abuse were from this single mother Christian forced group...?

But you are then also going on about some other 500,000 figure...!?

And that is why I'm asking you to clarify what actual points/arguments you are making, and to give some facts and figures for each one...!???

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Most amusing

So half a million you just ignore then Tommy?

That is just by the religious institutions

I also gave you stats on single and unwed mothers after you posted up acts that did little for them and you still make excuses over how many suffered abused and were told their parents were dead

The only thing most amusing is your inability to post anything factual

This is where you are conflating issues and numbers, dodge...

Only 130,000 over a 50 year period were sent abroad...

And you still havent even said...

1) How many were sent in each year compared to numbers being looked after etc...?

2) What % of those were subjected to any abuse...?

3) How many of the 130,000 were from single mothers...?

4) And how many of these were forced to hand them over by christian religious groups...?

5) How many of the % of those who suffered abuse were from this single mother Christian forced group...?

But you are then also going on about some other 500,000 figure...!?

And that is why I'm asking you to clarify what actual points/arguments you are making, and to give some facts and figures for each one...!???

Not conflating anything Tommy

Half a million that is recognized by the catholic church and Church of England

This is not about how many were sent Tommy but complicity.

Only 2,000 have come forward about abuse. Its like saying how many girls were abused in Rotherham

Is that your angle?

130,000 were sent, many not knowing they had a family

Is this the argument you want to defend?

Funny how and what you choose to believe

So I have stated everything you asked

have you asked the same with Rotherham?

1) How many were sent in each year into care compared to numbers being looked after etc...?

2) What % of those were subjected to any abuse...?

3) How many of the 130,000 were from single mothers...?

4) And how many of these were forced to hand them over by christian religious groups...?

5) How many of the % of those who suffered abuse were from this single mother Christian forced group...?

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:21 pm

There is only one question you need to ask Tommy

Lets see if you can figure it out

by Guest Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:36 pm

Oh and one last point Tommy

Does any one of your questions discount what many of these children suffered with abuse?

Lets go over stats mate?

by Sponsored content