Calais transfer.
Discussion
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.
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.
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.
BlackLabel said:
The "children" aren't mounting a legal challenge. A lawyer with a bee in their bonnet, but no real desire to see these children placed with them personally, will be making the legal challenge.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.
t and you're a fool if you truly believe that.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.
Just another chance to rub old englands generous nose in the dirt.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.
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.
Christ it makes you weep.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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
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
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?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.
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.
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!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.
He may well have ben wanting a "few nights" of love
She confused it with "parental love"
It all comes down to communication
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff