Calais transfer.

[9.3]

hornetrider said:

Are you sure it's not just your crap internet connection? Pics show up fine for me unless they've altered the article.

That's interesting - up until about 8am this morning they were obscuring them until it got discussed on LBC and Nick Ferrari was going to question it!

[Oakey]

The amusing part is all these experts in their chosen fields coming out to rubbish their own profession; dentists, paediatricians, etc.

Apparently tests to determine age are unreliable. I bet they weren't unreliable prior to this when they were being consulted for their services in determining the age of a subject

[768]

There's unreliable and then there's not being able to tell the difference between a 16 year old and a 45 year old with any confidence.

[Esseesse]

Anyone know how many 'refugees' Israel is taking?

[bitchstewie]

I don't have a massive issue with genuine children who have a right to be here being fast tracked.

In some cases this seems to be a blatant piss take though.

To those suggesting it's some kind of violation of human rights I'd ask a couple of very simple questions:

• If you have a 16 year old daughter would you be happy for one of these "children" to turn up on your doorstep?
• If I go to enroll at the local sixth form college do you think they'd take my word for it if I said I was 17 and I'd lost all my identification?

[kowalski655]

But they DO have tests for people born abroad with minimal records who are now here and claiming a pension, to see if they are 60/65.
Does it only work for OAPs?



Mind you, some of those shown are probably close to pension age

[FN2TypeR]

My biggest issue with such blatant piss taking is that it turns public opinion against not only the piss takers but people in genuine need, shameful stuff IMO.

[Shakermaker]

I can't imagine The Sun and its kin paying money to a photographer for pictures of actual, genuine children, but paying your pet photographer to take lots of pictures of those who look a lot older (probably because they are...) is going to help them sell papers.

[PorkInsider]

9.3 said:

hornetrider said:

Are you sure it's not just your crap internet connection? Pics show up fine for me unless they've altered the article.

That's interesting - up until about 8am this morning they were obscuring them until it got discussed on LBC and Nick Ferrari was going to question it!

Yes, the photos were definitely pixelated when I read the article earlier.

[blindswelledrat]

Agree with both of those posts.
Isn't it a shame that a bit of piss-taking combined with our tabloid-reading nations love of outrage, turns a good thing into such a negative?
A 2 second google reveals no end of actual cute children that could be the face of this project, and yet the tabloids are sooooo desperate to make it seem like all we are bringing over is grown men.

[superlightr]

If either of those two get a place at the school where my 12yr girls go to then I would be livid. I would be outside the school protesting and ultimately withdrawing my children from there.

How the fek can anyone think they are children ie under 16?

[pim]

Looks like the French are getting the trouble makers out because they are deciding who can go.

Haven't seen young children or girls.Can't we do anything right anymore?

[Esseesse]

blindswelledrat said:

A 2 second google reveals no end of actual cute children that could be the face of this project

Give us a link or a google search term that you'd suggest?

[p1stonhead]

Esseesse said:

blindswelledrat said:

A 2 second google reveals no end of actual cute children that could be the face of this project

Give us a link or a google search term that you'd suggest?

Daily Mail but still.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3388324/Th...

[don'tbesilly]

p1stonhead said:

Esseesse said:

blindswelledrat said:

A 2 second google reveals no end of actual cute children that could be the face of this project

Give us a link or a google search term that you'd suggest?

Daily Mail but still.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3388324/Th...

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.

The pictures highlighted in that link are in stark contrast to the 'children' we have seen coming into the UK, who are in the main anything but children!

It's nothing more than a blatant piss take by the Home office.

[iphonedyou]

blindswelledrat said:

That's like having your English corrected by a brain damaged chimp.

Your point very much stands - no issue with the word 'learnt', though. Grammatically acceptable and a purely stylistic choice over 'learned'.

[JagLover]

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.

Depends on the numbers settled in each individual council really.

£50,000 a year per child resettled until their 25th birthday was the costs I have heard claimed. Our own local council is so short of funds that they are handing over responsibilities to the parish councils such that each council tax payer will be paying significantly more each year (and creating parish councils where they did not exist before). Councils in general don't have the funds for anything more than token resettlements of unaccompanied children.

[Oakey]

p1stonhead said:

Daily Mail but still.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3388324/Th...

People pay good money every year to stand around in muddy fields surrounded by tents! Get Lily Allen, Bob Geldof and Co to perform and maybe we could sell tickets at £200 a pop to hipsters in Hunter wellies and Barbour jackets?

[Esseesse]

p1stonhead said:

Esseesse said:

blindswelledrat said:

A 2 second google reveals no end of actual cute children that could be the face of this project

Give us a link or a google search term that you'd suggest?

Daily Mail but still.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3388324/Th...

We're talking about the 'children' that have been recently allowed to come here. Your link does not show young children who have recently been allowed to come here.

BSR is suggesting that there is a deliberate attempt to portray these children as older by presumably not showing the toddlers. He then suggested (above) that a quick google would show actual cute children that we have recently allowed in to the UK.

[don'tbesilly]

JagLover 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.

Depends on the numbers settled in each individual council really.

£50,000 a year per child resettled until their 25th birthday was the costs I have heard claimed. Our own local council is so short of funds that they are handing over responsibilities to the parish councils such that each council tax payer will be paying significantly more each year (and creating parish councils where they did not exist before). Councils in general don't have the funds for anything more than token resettlements of unaccompanied children.

I take your point Jag, it's nothing new though, and many don't realise that the UK have been taking unaccompanied migrant children for quite some time now, as the link shows.

Wherever possible, genuine migrant children should be supported as best the UK can reasonably manage.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/26/youn...