Calais transfer.
Discussion
don'tbesilly said:
If the children shown in those pictures were of children that had made it through to the UK, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the thread wouldn't exist, the majority would support genuine unaccompanied children being homed in the UK.
I acknowledge that I cannot provide pictures of actual children shipped into the UK because they don't exist, but between us all we have are two pictures provided by our favourite tabloid. Do you honestly assume those two pictures are an exact representative of the children allowed in, or do you think our friends at the Mail have selected the most extreme examples?The truth is probably somewhere in between. As they are selecting "unaccompanied" children it is probably fair to say they are all going to be teenagers, but just because the Mail shows us two pictures of pensioners, it does not mean that we have effectively let in a load of men as everyone in this thread suddenly believes.
TO ask it another way: There are plenty of people to choose from so why on earth would they select adults instead of children?
Seems the failure rate in those being found not to be children as they've claimed is running at 65% in the UK and the French say only 5% of those in the camp are from Syria. Do nothing and public opinion will turn and not want any and will fuel only more people to come, more trafficking, more dead at sea etc.
Edited by Deptford Draylons on Wednesday 19th October 12:23
Fozziebear said:
Simple answer is if they are 16 and male they go back home to defend their country, which all of them seem to not want to do. It seems to be a high majority are male, how many are criminals/terrorists is worrying
PH and it's endless stream of "simple" answers.So you live in a town, your government is bombing you with poision gas, ISIS are attempting to control you, Russia is dropping bombs from another side and the Kurdish are shelling you from a different direction. You are 16 years old with no weapons. How exactly do you "defend your country" and who do you "defend" it from?
Fozziebear said:
Simple answer is if they are 16 and male they go back home to defend their country, which all of them seem to not want to do. It seems to be a high majority are male, how many are criminals/terrorists is worrying
If any of them do commit a terrorist attack, I just hope any of those responsible for letting them in are the victims.steveT350C said:
Two-thirds of child refugees entering UK found to be adults, Home Office figures showed...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/18/two-thi...
Not quite - 2/3 of those whom the Home Office thought might be lying about their age.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/18/two-thi...
blindswelledrat said:
Fozziebear said:
Simple answer is if they are 16 and male they go back home to defend their country, which all of them seem to not want to do. It seems to be a high majority are male, how many are criminals/terrorists is worrying
PH and it's endless stream of "simple" answers.So you live in a town, your government is bombing you with poision gas, ISIS are attempting to control you, Russia is dropping bombs from another side and the Kurdish are shelling you from a different direction. You are 16 years old with no weapons. How exactly do you "defend your country" and who do you "defend" it from?
Fozziebear said:
blindswelledrat said:
Fozziebear said:
Simple answer is if they are 16 and male they go back home to defend their country, which all of them seem to not want to do. It seems to be a high majority are male, how many are criminals/terrorists is worrying
PH and it's endless stream of "simple" answers.So you live in a town, your government is bombing you with poision gas, ISIS are attempting to control you, Russia is dropping bombs from another side and the Kurdish are shelling you from a different direction. You are 16 years old with no weapons. How exactly do you "defend your country" and who do you "defend" it from?
blindswelledrat said:
don'tbesilly said:
If the children shown in those pictures were of children that had made it through to the UK, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the thread wouldn't exist, the majority would support genuine unaccompanied children being homed in the UK.
TO ask it another way: There are plenty of people to choose from so why on earth would they select adults instead of children?You clearly think some are children, genuine children, fair enough.
However whilst I picked two pictures clearly showing grown, and clearly older males, clearly NOT children, you go off on a crusade suggesting that there are genuine children coming to the UK when the evidence to date would suggest otherwise, you've stated as much in your post.
If you read further on in the thread I clearly state (edited):
don'tbesilly said:
Wherever possible, genuine migrant children should be supported as best the UK can reasonably manage.
Your concern for genuine migrant children is one I demonstrably support, it's a great shame you see no harm in allowing grown men, NOT children into the UK, which clearly undermines the very support of people in favour of bringing genuine children into the UK.Your focus should be on condemning the Home office for allowing this travesty to continue, their actions are just stopping genuine and very vulnerable, very young children from coming to the UK, which I would imagine EVERYONE would support.
Feel free to continue your crusade/castigation against me and others,your focus is clearly wrong though!
blindswelledrat said:
Fortunately our society is made up of less unpleasant people than you so we will continue to help people and your opinion will remain irrelevant.
I wouldn't say I'm unpleasant, I'm just honest. I've seen firsthand the horrors some of these migrants are running from, but I'm a strong believer in repatriation. The UK needs both my opinion and others to make well rounded decisions, I could happily make the hard choices if required, unfortunately it's not fashionable to be honest anymore. blindswelledrat said:
Fozziebear said:
blindswelledrat said:
Fozziebear said:
Simple answer is if they are 16 and male they go back home to defend their country, which all of them seem to not want to do. It seems to be a high majority are male, how many are criminals/terrorists is worrying
PH and it's endless stream of "simple" answers.So you live in a town, your government is bombing you with poision gas, ISIS are attempting to control you, Russia is dropping bombs from another side and the Kurdish are shelling you from a different direction. You are 16 years old with no weapons. How exactly do you "defend your country" and who do you "defend" it from?
Anyway, you some sort of authority on all this? How do you know that 16 year old has no access to weapons?
Christ, I saw a 13 year old on TV this week in Aleppo playing the reporter with his dad, sending out pics and vids of what is happening on the ground. Good on him, eh? I just wondered while I was viewing, where he got his Nikon from which looked like a £10K example, and as for the f
king great watch on his wrist, I've seen worse on the wrist of David Beckham! Makes some of us wonder. And with good reason!blindswelledrat said:
Fortunately our society is made up of less unpleasant people than you so we will continue to help people and your opinion will remain irrelevant.
Have you ever had the pleasure of having groups of so called "Young Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers" being housed right next door to you?dandarez said:
Good job our 16 year olds here in ol' Blighty ran away during the bombing in WW2, otherwise you might not be here, eh?
Anyway, you some sort of authority on all this? How do you know that 16 year old has no access to weapons?
Christ, I saw a 13 year old on TV this week in Aleppo playing the reporter with his dad, sending out pics and vids of what is happening on the ground. Good on him, eh? I just wondered while I was viewing, where he got his Nikon from which looked like a £10K example, and as for the fking great watch on his wrist, I've seen worse on the wrist of David Beckham! Makes some of us wonder. And with good reason!
It has long been apparent that you don't really understand stuff and in order to try and explain it to you I would have to take you riiiight the way back to when you started school and somehow force you to concentrate for the next 10 years.Anyway, you some sort of authority on all this? How do you know that 16 year old has no access to weapons?
Christ, I saw a 13 year old on TV this week in Aleppo playing the reporter with his dad, sending out pics and vids of what is happening on the ground. Good on him, eh? I just wondered while I was viewing, where he got his Nikon from which looked like a £10K example, and as for the f
king great watch on his wrist, I've seen worse on the wrist of David Beckham! Makes some of us wonder. And with good reason!But you wouldn't listen anyway.
dandarez said:
Christ, I saw a 13 year old on TV this week in Aleppo playing the reporter with his dad, sending out pics and vids of what is happening on the ground. Good on him, eh? I just wondered while I was viewing, where he got his Nikon from which looked like a £10K example, and as for the fking great watch on his wrist, I've seen worse on the wrist of David Beckham! Makes some of us wonder. And with good reason!
You do realise that before all this sking great watch on his wrist, I've seen worse on the wrist of David Beckham! Makes some of us wonder. And with good reason!t hit the fan, Syria was a place with a prosperous middle class? Turning somewhere into a third world war zone sthole does not make all the valuable consumer goods magically disappear. 
blindswelledrat said:
PH and it's endless stream of "simple" answers.So you live in a town, your government is bombing you with poision gas, ISIS are attempting to control you, Russia is dropping bombs from another side and the Kurdish are shelling you from a different direction. You are 16 years old with no weapons. How exactly do you "defend your country" and who do you "defend" it from?
I know several on here keep on harking back to WWII to them I'd ask how would you feel about training and arming said teens a la 'Free French' or the Polish resistance? I suspect you'd be somewhat less than happy for that to happen - even assuming said refugees wanted to do this.
To BSR and like-minded people... what is your answer to this? Surely the best thing to do is to take the vulnerable people from the refugee camps in Lebanon etc? Would not this kill 2 birds with one stone in as much as you're taking genuine refugees and you're relieving pressure from countries that really need the help? Why do we take people from a camp peopled (if reports are correct) predominately by men of a certain age - and going by scenes we see all over the media (of varying flavours) not shy when it comes to criminality?
irocfan said:
Surely the best thing to do is to take the vulnerable people from the refugee camps in Lebanon etc? Would not this kill 2 birds with one stone in as much as you're taking genuine refugees and you're relieving pressure from countries that really need the help?
I wonder if we're getting something out of the French in return.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff