Britain is urged to take in 3,000 refugee children

(73 Posts)
MumOnTheRunCatchingUp Tue 05-Jan-16 15:14:45

Just read this report and I'm left wondering where we will place this amount of lone possibly orphaned, children. Foster carers are in demand anyway, but how are our children's homes and the care system going to cope? So many British children already in the care system are being failed

AuntieStella Tue 05-Jan-16 15:19:11

Which report is that?

And did it include anything about what would be needed to provide adequate care and support, and how that would be found (and paid for, though cash is probably more available than skills and places)?

MumOnTheRunCatchingUp Tue 05-Jan-16 20:15:01

reut.rs/1O7kNrQ

TheNewStatesman Wed 06-Jan-16 06:24:33

They will mostly be teenagers, not tiny tots. Wouldn't institutional care be OK for most of them? I know foster care might be ideal, but realistically I don't think too many people want to take teenage boys from unknown backgrounds.

SisterViktorine Wed 06-Jan-16 06:51:55

I don't think there are 3000 places in children's homes just sitting vacant! Doubt there's a 10th of that TBH.

AuntieStella Wed 06-Jan-16 07:11:55

Thanks!

The Reuters report is about a parliamentary committee, and the government appears minded to have accepted the principle, if not the exact numbers. It's about deciding who the pledged 20,000 coming to UK will be. It looks as if Save The Children are involved in planning for unaccompanied minors.

The committee also called on the British government to ensure that refugees from vulnerable groups such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), Christians and the disabled have access to the resettlement process.

It is right that Britain takes in refugees.

I think it is right that the most vulnerable are prioritised, if that is possible.

ReallyTired Sat 09-Jan-16 03:02:52

If the uk does not want lots of refugees then maybe taking the most expensive refugees is a way of us doing our bit. The logistics of 3000 teens/ children is hard but not impossible. For dome teens a children's home maybe best. Many foster carers would struggle with psychologically traumised teens.

GiantYorkiePud Sat 09-Jan-16 08:20:24

Children are the best ones to take imo. Young, open minded, eager to learn. Look at some of our celebrities who are former refugees, we're not talking TOWIE lol.
It's right that we do our best to help given that our govt have formed a habit for being the bull in the China shop. Given the number of empty buildings we have if our govt wanted they could probably solve a lit of housing issues.

SisterViktorine Sat 09-Jan-16 11:02:46

There 5220 children in children's homes, so this would represent close to doubling the existing provision.

Placements cost £3000 a week so it would cost £468 million pounds a year.

BatteryOperatedBoyfriend Sat 09-Jan-16 11:07:42

I think each boarding school should take some, look after them, teach them, empower them to maybe one day return to help them improve their own countries.

Samcro Sat 09-Jan-16 11:12:45

we are in free fall with social care at the moment. so can't see how

SisterViktorine Sat 09-Jan-16 11:16:34

Boarding schools only operate for around 35 weeks of the year Battery. Where are the kids going in the holidays?

CalmYoBadSelf Sat 09-Jan-16 11:18:33

I know that teens in children's homes here are not from backgrounds without problems but my impression is that they don't have a great record on helping them. They could be the worst possible place to put teens who are traumatised, from very different social circumstances and who may have been exposed to radical views.
We have seen these dreadful sex attacks in Germany which may relate to the views of some men towards women. Teen boys from those parts of the world may already have absorbed those views so dumping them in an institution is not likely to help re-educate them to play a useful role in either Western society or in rebuilding their own countries

ReallyTired Sun 10-Jan-16 03:56:37

Foster care is the first option, but many foster placements fail for truely damaged teens. A children's home is going to better than living in Syria or a refugee camp. Children's home struggle because the children are so damaged. The outcome is often better than the alternative.

Many people in social care do an excellent job.

MumOnTheRunCatchingUp Sun 10-Jan-16 22:16:23

But there aren't enough places as it is.... Or foster carers

BillSykesDog Mon 11-Jan-16 04:55:57

Children who don't have places to go in school holidays when they board normally go to professional guardians, often ex teachers. I went to boarding school and there were girls who were already pupils when wars broke out in their home countries and that's what happened, they were sometimes volunteers, sometimes paid.

But do you really think boarding school is a good idea? How do you think that would play with the general public? Families who work 90 hours a week and pay lots of tax but have to send their children to poor local schools? Could never dream of private school. How do you think they would feel if an incomer was immediately given access to the best education in the country which is unavailable to 93% of British children?

hesterton Mon 11-Jan-16 06:10:51

Evacuees during the war were housed by people who were not paid for it. I think there would be that many people volunteering to open their doors to these children without expecting full foster fees. They would need some training and checks of course - that would be pricey.

I have taught many unaccompanied minors who were in foster care. The vast majority were far less trouble than British teens. And they want to learn, so much.

WinnieTheW0rm Mon 11-Jan-16 06:38:57

I suppose it boils down to the simple questions:

- should countries take in refugees?
- should they include the most vulnerable?

CadburysTastesVileNow Mon 11-Jan-16 06:39:15

They were paid nine shillings a week, hesterton.

StealthPolarBear Mon 11-Jan-16 06:44:28

I agree about the boarding schools.
I've been told by someone who runs asmall children's home that teens often prefer an institution (obv with caring, available staff) to a family. They have parents and resent any 'replacements' but are old enough to thrive in a loving institution.

StealthPolarBear Mon 11-Jan-16 06:46:10

And as someone who is considering whether we can afford private school and definitely couldn't afford one of the 'top' schools I'd have no problems.y children already have so much more.

meditrina Mon 11-Jan-16 07:03:50

"my children already have so much more"

Beautifully put.

I've got the news on, and accounts of Madaya are dreadful.

BatteryOperatedBoyfriend Mon 11-Jan-16 19:21:21

Maybe by having these children put in boarding school could be used both ways, they would be able to get the best education to be able to change their lives for the better (instead of being in some kind of state care home with no real prospects). And also it might inspire some of the children already at the school put their great education towards helping these people in the future etc.

I think that if the parents who work hard and send their children to boarding school have a problem with a few under privileged children being there and benefiting then they need to look hard at themselves. I can't afford for my child to go to boarding school and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Much better solution.

Sparklycat Mon 11-Jan-16 19:32:41

This reminds me of the Kindertransport.

SisterViktorine Mon 11-Jan-16 20:54:39

The cost of a fully residential 52week placement tends to be around £80,000 so the boarding school solution would cost around £240 million per annum.

An investment of just short of a million pounds in each child if they were in boarding school provision from 7-18.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take these young people, but it is a really significant allocation of public funds however you look at it.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now