Calais transfer.

Author
Discussion

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

164 months

Sunday 11th December 2016
quotequote all
blindswelledrat said:
andymc said:
so where are all the women?
The women in children and most of the men will have stopped in the first country because it is much more difficult for them to travel long distances.
The younger, stronger men with less ties have a greater ability to choose their destination.
THis in no way undermines the point I made above.
If your wife & kids stopped in eg Italy, wouldn't you stay with them?

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

129 months

Wednesday 28th December 2016
quotequote all
Thirty-six child asylum seekers who previously lived in the Calais refugee camp have issued a legal challenge to the home secretary. They claim Amber Rudd acted unlawfully in the way she handled their applications. It is the first time children from the camp have taken individual legal action against the government. The children were dispersed across France after the site was dismantled on 31 October. Twenty-eight of those bringing the legal action have had their applications refused, while another eight are awaiting decisions from the Home Office.

article said:
Of the 28 refused, 11 are aged 14, seven are 15, nine are 16 and one is 17. Sixteen are from Eritrea, 11 are from Afghanistan and one is from Sudan. They have been dispersed to 15 reception centres around France.

In the legal challenge the government is accused of reneging on its commitment to bring vulnerable accompanied refugee children to the UK under section 67 of the Immigration Act, known as the Dubs amendment. This makes provision for particularly vulnerable children to come to the UK at the discretion of the government.

According to the children’s lawyers, the Home Office has failed to allow the relocation of many of the most vulnerable children to the UK, failed to give proper written decisions in refusing these applications and failed to use its discretion in response to extreme cases.

Esseesse

8,969 posts

214 months

Wednesday 28th December 2016
quotequote all
blindswelledrat said:
andymc said:
so where are all the women?
The women in children and most of the men will have stopped in the first country because it is much more difficult for them to travel long distances.
The younger, stronger men with less ties have a greater ability to choose their destination.
THis in no way undermines the point I made above.
I'd missed this. What a load of st and you're a fool if you truly believe that.

anonymous-user

60 months

Thursday 29th December 2016
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
Thirty-six child asylum seekers who previously lived in the Calais refugee camp have issued a legal challenge to the home secretary. They claim Amber Rudd acted unlawfully in the way she handled their applications. It is the first time children from the camp have taken individual legal action against the government. The children were dispersed across France after the site was dismantled on 31 October. Twenty-eight of those bringing the legal action have had their applications refused, while another eight are awaiting decisions from the Home Office.

article said:
Of the 28 refused, 11 are aged 14, seven are 15, nine are 16 and one is 17. Sixteen are from Eritrea, 11 are from Afghanistan and one is from Sudan. They have been dispersed to 15 reception centres around France.

In the legal challenge the government is accused of reneging on its commitment to bring vulnerable accompanied refugee children to the UK under section 67 of the Immigration Act, known as the Dubs amendment. This makes provision for particularly vulnerable children to come to the UK at the discretion of the government.

According to the children’s lawyers, the Home Office has failed to allow the relocation of many of the most vulnerable children to the UK, failed to give proper written decisions in refusing these applications and failed to use its discretion in response to extreme cases.
Just another chance to rub old englands generous nose in the dirt.
Christ it makes you weep.

darker grapefruit

360 posts

106 months

Thursday 29th December 2016
quotequote all
give an inch...

Here is the Home Office reply to a PMQ a few days ago, on 22 December:-

"We are continuing to work closely with partners across Europe to identify unaccompanied asylum seeking children who may be eligible to come to the UK.

The Government has transferred more than 750 children to the UK in support of the French operation to clear the Calais camp, including children who meet the criteria for section 67 of the Immigration Act.

The Dubs process has not ended. More eligible children will be transferred from Europe, in line with the terms of the Immigration Act, in the coming months. Following consultation with local authorities on capacity to host unaccompanied children, we will be announcing the specified number in due course".

del mar

2,838 posts

205 months

Thursday 29th December 2016
quotequote all
Has Lord Dubs, laid out his proposal for paying for the care of these children ?

Jazzy Jag

3,473 posts

97 months

Thursday 29th December 2016
quotequote all
Once these mid 30s "children" are in the UK, how long before thousands of random jihadist, rock up claiming to be their parents and demanding to be allowed to join their offspring?

Each 36 year old child will probably have at least 5, 33 year old parents, all of whom will get legal aid to challenge the UK Gov't and then the endless appeals processes.

furious

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

176 months

Thursday 29th December 2016
quotequote all
It's not the kids' fault is it, it'll be ambulance chasing/politicized lawyers and/or anarchist/left/liberal/no borders types acting on behalf of.

PositronicRay

27,483 posts

189 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As reported what a horrible situation to put a caring family in.

Murph7355

38,839 posts

262 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
I'm sure it was all a mistake and Lily Allen will step in to look after Abdul...

0000

13,812 posts

197 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
I'm sure it was all a mistake and Lily Allen will step in to look after Abdul...
Match made in heaven there, let's hope so.

del mar

2,838 posts

205 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
Can we not prosecute her for endangering her own child ?

There is a big difference between fostering young children in the UK care system and taking in somebody that nobody knows a single thing about.

No doubt she was all very supportive of taking in these poor refugees from Calais.


SKP555

1,114 posts

132 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
Anyone know the economics of this?

How much do these carers receive for taking in such a "child?"

How much does the council get from central government?

Presumably agencies get a cut?

anonymous-user

60 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
Quite frankly I am disgusted with her. So she took someone in. So he was a little older than she had been led to believe. So she felt intimidated by him.
But why didn't she just have a heart to heart with him to clear up the little discrepancies and then embrace him for what he is.
A young adult/ older teenager who has witnessed such unpleasantness in his life that all he needs is love. She could have provided that love. If she hadn't he could have always found it with her daughter. That could have been acceptable as it could just be put down to cultural differences.
I don't know I really don't

Cupramax

10,593 posts

258 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
Top satire from Techiedave. Could have come from the mouth of Dianne herself.

0000

13,812 posts

197 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
Cupramax said:
come from the mouth of Dianne
vomit

Europa1

10,923 posts

194 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Referencing both the Daily Mail and Loose Women in a post - bold! wink

rscott

15,227 posts

197 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
del mar said:
Can we not prosecute her for endangering her own child ?

There is a big difference between fostering young children in the UK care system and taking in somebody that nobody knows a single thing about.

No doubt she was all very supportive of taking in these poor refugees from Calais.
How could she be prosecuted for accepting someone social services placed with her?
From the Wail article:-

She told presenters Ruth Langsford and Saira Khan that she had taken in the asylum seeker after being asked to look after him for a 'few nights' by social services.


anonymous-user

60 months

Thursday 2nd March 2017
quotequote all
rscott said:
How could she be prosecuted for accepting someone social services placed with her?
From the Wail article:-

She told presenters Ruth Langsford and Saira Khan that she had taken in the asylum seeker after being asked to look after him for a 'few nights' by social services.
And that supports my point - COMMUNICATION!
He may well have ben wanting a "few nights" of love
She confused it with "parental love"
It all comes down to communication