How many Syrian children are coming here?

[FredClogs]

s3fella said:

FredClogs said:

MarshPhantom said:

How drepressing PH has become.

Indeed, but to be fair it's a decent reflection of a certain demographic in the country.

Opinions and turns of phrase like the one above by S3fella are genuinely racist and I find them repulsive but you'd be foolish to think that they're rare or niche, they're not, they're fairly mainstream and people are ever more brazen to air them both in anonymity on the internet and in real life. There are a lot of sad individuals around.

Racist? WTF are you on about.
I find your lefty utopian liberal bullst sad and naïve, but am to grown up to be "repulsed" by it.
Grow up a bit you big precious girl's blouse.

Describing people as "rapey" because of the part of the world they come from is to assign moral signatures to people based on their "race". It's an abhorrent thing to do and wholly inaccurate which not only leads you to look like a bigoted prick but when this rhetoric of hatred based on race permeates through a culture it also leads to all sorts of nonsense and logical fallacy at best. Your behaviour and opinions are no better than those which you espouse to hate so much, calling me names won't change any of that.

[majordad]

If the decision to allow them in was appealed, or delayed, and they went past 18 that would remove a good many of them.

[RedTrident]

300 children that have had their lives devastated by war.

There is of course a wider discussion about immigration. I read about it every day on here.

I'd like to think most of us are able to differentiate between 300 children, many of whom have lost everything from an economic migrant or asylum seeking chancer.

This thread is disappointing. We're better than this.

[s3fella]

FredClogs said:

Describing people as "rapey" because of the part of the world they come from is to assign moral signatures to people based on their "race". It's an abhorrent thing to do and wholly inaccurate which not only leads you to look like a bigoted prick but when this rhetoric of hatred based on race permeates through a culture it also leads to all sorts of nonsense and logical fallacy at best. Your behaviour and opinions are no better than those which you espouse to hate so much, calling me names won't change any of that.

And what part of the world is that then? You seem to know it all? Because of course, the rest of us are not allowed to know the part of the world these people are from! So how can it be "racist"? I don't know their race, and neither do you.
Fool

[danllama]

s3fella said:

That lord Dubster is saying this is only the start, we "need" to take thousands from Greece as well now.

Tell me, Lord, how many of these 30 years old rapey single male kids will you have living in your leafy village, I wonder?

This. Why the hell are they coming here?

I think we've had our fill.

Genuine children are fine. But we've clearly seen here and across Europe that they are PRETENDING and we're doing absolutely nothing about it.

Edited by danllama on Tuesday 25th October 13:52

[s3fella]

RedTrident said:

300 children that have had their lives devastated by war.

There is of course a wider discussion about immigration. I read about it every day on here.

I'd like to think most of us are able to differentiate between 300 children, many of whom have lost everything from an economic migrant or asylum seeking chancer.

This thread is disappointing. We're better than this.

Which war?

Where are these people from? There's plenty of people in the Jungle that are not from Syria.

Our Govt said near 18 months ago when the "migrant crisis" began, that we would take displaced people from Syria from the camps set up in Jordan etc housing them.....millions of them! And we would take some, 20k IIIRC. People can argue it is not enough, but it is something and it is more than these 300 odd from the Jungle.
The problem with the people in the Jungle is that no one knows their motives for being there although as many have eluded, as soon as they live for months in the Calais Jungle, rather than go and claim asylum in France, they become economic migrants, irrespective of where they originate and why they are no longer there.
At least the people living in camps in the desert in Jordan are known to be genuine refugees or war, these people should be helped, no arguments.

But who should we take? Genuine refugees from a warzone, verified as such and yet who are living according to the international rules applied, in camps in the Jordanian desert, or people from unknown places, who have somehow travelled across Europe, by nefarious illegal means, and who have had or gained the financial means to do that, illegally camped up in N France, and possibly made several attempts to illegally enter the UK........I mean, seriously, which of the two types would you want living next door? People who play by the rules and are happy with what they get, safety, security and basic living standard, or "do as I likeys" who've connived their way across half the world and through many safe EU and non EU countries to get to UK and ONLY UK?

Edited by s3fella on Tuesday 25th October 13:55

[davek_964]

s3fella said:

FredClogs said:

Describing people as "rapey" because of the part of the world they come from is to assign moral signatures to people based on their "race". It's an abhorrent thing to do and wholly inaccurate which not only leads you to look like a bigoted prick but when this rhetoric of hatred based on race permeates through a culture it also leads to all sorts of nonsense and logical fallacy at best. Your behaviour and opinions are no better than those which you espouse to hate so much, calling me names won't change any of that.

And what part of the world is that then? You seem to know it all? Because of course, the rest of us are not allowed to know the part of the world these people are from! So how can it be "racist"? I don't know their race, and neither do you.
Fool

So on what exactly do you base the fact that they are "rapey"?

[BOR]

s3fella said:

the rest of us

the rest of us ? You don't speak for the rest of us, you only speak for a few tawdry swivell eyed racists.

[alock]

How did these children get to Calais from Syria?

Did they hitchhike through Turkey, Bulgaira, Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Germany, France?
Did they get a boat to Italy and then hitchhike through France?
Did they fly?
Did they travel with family who then abandoned them?

We can only apply the correct solution to the problem if we understand it. Is the media choosing not to discuss these points or have the reporters just not thought to ask the questions?

[Four Litre]

Hugo a Gogo said:

1000 yr 6 Syrian immigrants in Manchester alone? my arse

Pretty sure it said 'International arrivals' not Syrian immigrants.

[JuniorD]

REALIST123 said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

Freds said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

wow 300

a whole 300

and we keep hearing that it's a Christian country

edit: out of interest, why fathers and uncles, yet aunt's and mother's with apostrophes?

I struggled to get my head around your comments Hugo, until I looked at your location, do you find the OP's post 'offensive' or is it a case of the more the merrier ?

you really struggled with the concept?

a rich western country, 6th biggest economy is it? taking in 300 refugee children from Syria is so abhorrent to you?
even if you disagree with it, you really can't comprehend that anyone would think it's not that bad?

Much more money, space and resources in Germany and mainland Europe. Why not keep them there?

In fairness to Germany and our other mainland cousins they have been taking in droves and droves of refugees and immigrants since decades now. germany have been doing all the unglamorous work of taking in the old folk and other less photogenic people in need. What the UK has done is a drop in the ocean in comparison. And of course the UK has recently decided that it is far better than the rest of the EU combined, so presumably the UK has the better capacity and resources to do their fair share now.

[don'tbesilly]

RedTrident said:

I'd like to think most of us are able to differentiate between 300 children, many of whom have lost everything from an economic migrant or asylum seeking chancer.

This thread is disappointing. We're better than this.

Most can see the difference, and based on the mainly grown men that people have seen in the media it's clear it's the authorities that are struggling to differentiate between the groups you mention.

If the authorities did what they stated they would do, and bring in children that deserve to be here,most would support such a cause and rightfully so, however what's happening is far from what we were told and we have grown men at the expense of the children the public were told were coming.

The authorities are letting the children and public down, and should be far,far better than they are.

[Smollet]

BOR said:

s3fella said:

the rest of us

the rest of us ? You don't speak for the rest of us, you only speak for a few tawdry swivell eyed racists.

I'm sorry but who made you the spokesperson for the rest of us.
Are you related to Lily Allen per chance?

[s3fella]

Or perhaps the UK decided that it was better outside an undeomocratic and in many cases, unelected organisation like the EU, an organisation that we contribute hugely to, to get nothing much back.
Ironcically, I am sure the sight of the effect of the open door policy on immigration in Germany DID have an effect on the result of the Brexit vote for some, but don't be so naive as to think it was what clinched it for Brexit. There are far more issues at stake and we would all do well to remember that.

UK people say the EU has had it's day. Some in UK will agree, some wont....but it's not all about immigration.

[BoRED S2upid]

JagLover said:

BoRED S2upid said:

If they were unaccompanied children say 4,5,6 year olds would the OP be any more compassionate or is he for real? Those "children" we all saw we're obviously not the age we should be taking they should be at home fighting to save their country. But orphaned infants should be welcomed with open arms.

This

The Papers are all up in outrage of whether these "children" are under 18 or not. But few who hear the term "children" think of 16 & 17 year old boys in any case.

My dad was younger than virtually all the 300 being resettled, if not all, when be started his first job and started to earn his keep.

Many 14,15,16,17 year olds would argue that they are NOT children but young adults (which they are). We wouldn't have this or many other threads on the subject if they were genuine school age orphan children unable to fend for themselves but there's no way of proving any of this in such a war.

What happened in WW2? Each side made a list of who they lost and therefore which children were orphans? I wasn't born so don't know the technicalities.

[Motorrad]

krisdelta said:

these are PEOPLE caught up in a horrific blood bath,

I know 'the jungle' was supposed to be bad and the French aren't renowned as the friendliest folk to non-francophones but last time I checked it was still a safe country where lots of people from this country (inexplicably to me having lived there) like to go on holiday.

[Biker 1]

s3fella said:

I know precisely his background

So that justifies calling him a ??
Suggest you read the Rise & Fall of the Third Reich, including all the gory bits involving Dr Mengele before using that kind of language to describe a holocaust survivor.
Have your opinion - fine, I guess that's what freedom of speech/democracy is all about, but describing Lord Dubs in that tone?

[RedTrident]

don'tbesilly said:

RedTrident said:

I'd like to think most of us are able to differentiate between 300 children, many of whom have lost everything from an economic migrant or asylum seeking chancer.

This thread is disappointing. We're better than this.

Most can see the difference, and based on the mainly grown men that people have seen in the media it's clear it's the authorities that are struggling to differentiate between the groups you mention.

If the authorities did what they stated they would do, and bring in children that deserve to be here,most would support such a cause and rightfully so, however what's happening is far from what we were told and we have grown men at the expense of the children the public were told were coming.

The authorities are letting the children and public down, and should be far,far better than they are.

I'd not seen the age breakdown of the 300. Is the UK government questioning if these are minors?

Where the authorities have been letting us all down isn't over these 300. Of course I also come from a school of thought that thinks don't go and st in someone else's back yard and expect nothing to happen to you.

The new wave of movement of people out of North Africa was a consequence of what took place on Libya. Did we or did we not get ourselves involved on regime change there?

I'd have had more sympathy with the original poster if he'd asked for more detailed checks on these minors.

[davek_964]

I do think the earlier question that was asked is interesting. Even assuming that these 300 are unaccompanied 5 year old orphans, how did they get to Calais?

[rscott]

alock said:

How did these children get to Calais from Syria?

Did they hitchhike through Turkey, Bulgaira, Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Germany, France?
Did they get a boat to Italy and then hitchhike through France?
Did they fly?
Did they travel with family who then abandoned them?

We can only apply the correct solution to the problem if we understand it. Is the media choosing not to discuss these points or have the reporters just not thought to ask the questions?

I think most of the media understands that we're accepting some migrants from Calais as part of the clearance of the Jungle and this isn't an open-ended policy of accepting them. Rather it's part of a short term programme to clear away the mass of refugees.