Guest post: "Britain must not turn its back on child refugees in Europe"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

I can only imagine my desperation if I had to consider sending my boys away just to keep them safe.

But if I ever had to, I’d want a mother like Karen to be there for them. Karen is an amazing woman who told her story of fostering a refugee boy and brought huge attention to a campaign to get more refugee children settled safely in Britain.

This week, MPs had the chance to vote to let mothers like Karen keep doing what they want to do - opening their homes and their hearts to refugee children who are in Europe all alone without a mum or dad to look after them. I'm ashamed to say that they did not, and that the government decided to close the door to the thousands of children who need our help. The campaign was only asking for 3,000 children to come to Britain. To put that in context – that would be just five children per parliamentary constituency, and nowhere near the 10,000 mostly Jewish children that Britain saved through the Kindertransport before the Second World War.

I took a special interest in this vote because I have been working at Theirworld to help create school places for Syrian refugee children in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, where many fleeing families arrive first. I have been focused on how to make sure that children never embark on a further dangerous journey to find a safe haven. When I saw that the British parliament was considering a vote to offer a welcome to 3,000 lone children who really need us to open our hearts and homes, I wanted to add my support. So last week I wrote to my local MP for the first time ever. I wanted his backing for refugee children, an issue that goes well beyond party politics. I know lots of Mumsnetters contacted their MPs too and have heard from many of you on Twitter. It was devastating to see the government vote down the proposal to give safety to lone refugee children in Europe.

But this does not stop there. The House of Lords last night voted to back the bill thanks to the efforts of Lord Dubs and other campaigners. So it goes back to the House of Commons next Tuesday with a chance for MPs to reconsider their vote and help 3,000 lone children.

One of the ways you can help them think again is to sign this petition. If enough of us do it then perhaps a few more MPs will listen and reconsider their vote. In pushing for this change we won't be on our own – we have the backing of lots of energetic dedicated groups like Citizens UK, Save the Children, HelpRefugees and others. This weekend the former Archbishop of Canterbury gave his blessing, arguing that this is a chance to honour what our parents and grandparents did in the face of an earlier catastrophe.

This is not a question of sparking a new political controversy - that is not my way and not the Mumsnet way, I don't think - it is a matter of simple humanity. While we can't ensure that every child is safe in his or her own country, we can act to prevent children dying on our doorstep here in Europe, and ensure a safe home and education and hope for a better future.

As long as this terrible crisis runs on and horribly on - then we have obligations to the children who are here in our continent. Our MPs now have a second chance to help these vulnerable children and we should help them to take it.

Please join me, and sign here: Britain must not turn its back on child refugees in Europe.

Do you have teenage daughters Emily?

Your right Puzzled no poster is saying it bar one who is assuming it!

amelia you have presented some worrying arguments there.

This thread reads like a UKIP social.

Why's that? Have UKIP come out and said there needs to be more provisions for British children needing fostering? Did they also come out and say they don't approve of children being raped?

Heavens.

"Child refugees"? What, like the male refugee children in other European countries that we keep reading about who eventually turn out to be in their late teens and twenties?

UKIP's Steven Woolfe MEP has condemned David Cameron's u-turn decision to take 3,000 lone child refugees into the UK saying it 'puts 100,000 homeless UK children at back of queue'

I'll repeat again.

How many unaccompanied children is your country taking in Emily

The Guardian has an interesting article. www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/12/childrens-services-call-for-resources-to-deal-with-rise-in-child-refugees?CMP=share_btn_tw

Interesting choice of main photo for that article too - not quite as misleaduing as the one in the OP - but still...
Further down the photo with the councillor is more realistic but interesting the unaccompanied children are sitting and he is standing - maybe stood up they would be taller than him ...

So what? Loads of children end up taller than adults.

The Guardian article has it spot on. It can be managed but it needs exceptional organisation to make sure that it all works well, for the children's sake as much as anything. For these and the other children currently in care the system needs to know where the funds are coming from and exactly how it is all going to work. Children need the right support, we will fail them if we do not do the correct groundwork. Six or seven weeks is cutting it incredibly fine and it also suggests that the acceptance needs to be staggered so any tweaks to the system can be made.

Emily on average most children don't complete their full growth until 18. Most boys do not have their full adult shape until their mid twenties when they tend to bulk out muscle wise, they are also not quite as hirstute in their early teens as they are by their mid twenties.

I am not trying to be rude or clever but I did hear David Cameron promising a fully comprehensive care package for ALL children who use the care system. It is desperately needed, no one can deny that. All looked after children are so very vulnerable and no amount of money thrown at them will compensate them for not having their birth family around them at every step and stage of their lives. I would never diminish their needs.
It just occurred to me that if we do bring 3,000 refugee children into the UK, and they go into care, these children will also qualify for this package of guaranteed housing, guaranteed jobs and guaranteed health care and education.
It did occur to me that children already know to Social Services will be left in dangerous situations and denied foster care due to our acknowledged lack of foster carers.
I am not lacking compassion, but I just don't see how the sums add up unless the EU pays for more foster carers, more social workers, more healthcare, more school places, trauma counsellors, teachers, even translators and TA's may be needed. It is a massive ask of the UK, particularly as these children are already safe in other EU countries.

But it is clear you are trying to be rude Emily, very clearly!

It was really not my intention to offend. I am very interested in these subjects, although I admit not as politically switched on as some posters. It was a genuine ask from me in the light of David Cameron's recent promise to looked after children (which these refugees will be).

If we accept 3,000 refugee children that will need 100 more classrooms, 100 more teachers, 100 TA's, 100 interpreters, 3,000 foster carers and the social workers to back them for both child and foster carers, 100 dentist, 100 doctors, and 100 trauma councellors. If you take a child into local authority care then the LA must commit to funding all the above.

Now we add David Cameron's promise and add into that equation 3,000 guaranteed jobs and guaranteed housing for these children on leaving care.

I am not saying we should not take 3,000 refugee children. You would have to be pretty heartless to deny ANY child safety. We do not have enough foster places for the UK children at risk of significant harm, and our NHS and social services are stretched to breaking point.

As I said above I have no answers. It is a massive commitment. How will it work in practice?

Yuk you didn't. And you speak far more sense than the deluded fool. Don't feed it.

You are very thoughtful Yuk and didn't deserve those comments.

You are very thoughtful Yuk and didn't deserve those comments.
Well said.

You have given the issue thought. I am sorry you had unpleasant comments made towards you Yuk.

Why do you keep name calling?

Better than the pubescent wail of 'let them all in'.

And poorly thought out is far superior to not thought out at all.

Name calling is very much lack of thought and calls in to question the callers intellectual capacities too.

I don't understand why this is continually happening. I understand disagreement of opinions. I understand being passionate about a cause. Poor Yuk wasn't blunt, or saying anything outrageous. I don't get what is going on at all.