Britain is urged to take in 3,000 refugee children

[MumOnTheRunCatchingUp]

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

[GourmetSoup]

"Austrian officials are investigating claims that underage asylum seekers have been sexually assaulting three schoolgirls for months without anybody taking action."
link

[GourmetSoup]

"Despite claiming that they're teenagers, police are said to believe the alleged attackers to be older than stated'"
Warning: upsetting link

[emilybohemia]

Nice to see your comment Throwingpebbles.

Viking

Refugees are refugees regardless of their age and sex.

I agree.

[MumOnTheRunCatchingUp]

Well yes. Have government said how yet?

[throwingpebbles]

I don't think the question should be whether or not we take these 3000. Of course we must. Of course. It is the least we can do.

The only question should be how best to accommodate and care for them and now to balance their needs with the needs of others in the country.

[TheNewStatesman]

Ah--that would make a lot more sense (and I agree that the UK's position of taking people from the camps directly was probably a wise decision). So we are talking about orphans with no relatives able to take care of them? Or parents actually agreeing to give up their kids temporarily in order to get them out of Syria?

[AuntieStella]

"the current group (the unaccompanied minors coming into Europe right now) appear to be predominently in their mid-teens (or claiming to be) and male."

Britain isn't taking in those who manage to make the journey to Europe. So refuge in UK isn't on the cards for them.

UK policy (somewhat condemned at the time) is to take refugees from the UN camps. Looks like they made the right call on that one.

[VikingVolva]

"I really question the sense of such a proposal when the country is already struggling to provide services. Surely the better option is to send money to support refugees in camps in the Middle East?"

It might be worth going back to the threads after the death of Alan Kurdi, to see the strength of feeling that Britain should take in refugees, that the number the government was plans to accept was far too low, and that we shouldn't care about the cost.

"I also think the shocking attacks on women in Germany and Sweden are strong indicators against taking in young men (including teenagers)"

Refugees are refugees regardless of their age and sex. In Germany in particular, they took in those who managed to arrive, and it was clear that far more men were risking such a journey. I'm nor terribly sure that will make a difference, but at least by having a programme from camps there's some idea who will be arriving.

People don't tend to identify themselves as UKIP on MN, for obvious reasons, but now there isn't a picture of a dead toddler occupying people's minds, I've noticed a lot of support for policies which are those of that party.

[TheNewStatesman]

Interesting article, Emilybohemia, but the overall age balance of the two groups being compared is still completely different. The WWII group contained a certain number of 16yos as part of a representative age spread; the current group (the unaccompanied minors coming into Europe right now) appear to be predominently in their mid-teens (or claiming to be) and male.

Of course people can choose to take on minors of any age/sex and some will, but I am just trying to explain why not a lot of families are likely to come forward volunteering in this case, and that this does not necessarily mean that people are more hard-hearted than they were in WWII.

[AnthonyBlanche]

I really question the sense of such a proposal when the country is already struggling to provide services. Surely the better option is to send money to support refugees in camps in the Middle East? I also think the shocking attacks on women in Germany and Sweden are strong indicators against taking in young men (including teenagers)

[emilybohemia]

No, as this article states, a significant number were teenagers, some later treated as 'enemy aliens'. Ages ranged from 3 to 17.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kinder.html
Some were 16 on arrival.

The picture below shows two British schoolboys teaching refugees a song. They don't are not tots.

www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/two-etonian-schoolboys-teaching-a-group-of-jewish-refugees-news-photo/3435147

There were 10,000 refugees to Britain, including teenagers. Some of those over 14 went to boarding schools or foster care if they were not sponsored.

In 1940, some 1,000 children over the age of 16 were interred as ‘enemy aliens’. Around 400 were transported overseas to Canada and Australia. However, public protest against these internments saw the return of many deportees.

[TheNewStatesman]

I suggest we focus scarce resources on the youngest kids. Honestly, though, you won't get many unaccompanied 8yos. Most of them will be with their families.

[TheNewStatesman]

With all due respect, most of the kids being posted around between different countries in WWII were primary school-aged moppets, and their backgrounds and ages could be verified.

The majority of unaccompanied minors coming out of the ME, Central Asia and North Africa right now are either big teenage boys or grown men pretending to be teenage boys. If we really want to apply the whole "what about WWII??" analogy, well, quite honestly most of these youths probably would have been expected to fight in WWII, if they had been living in the 1940s.

(Not saying that is necessarily right, just saying that that is the correct historical comparison).

[Samcro]

but they don't
the most vulnerable adults and children in this country are the most affected by the cuts.
it doesn't matter that you say that is wrong. this government were voted in.
if 3000 vulnerable children are taken in, the children and adults who are already suffering here, will be hit harder.

[emilybohemia]

amarmai

'has anyone mentioned the huge number of british children who were evacuated to other countries during the 2nd world war?'

I don't think people like to consider that or the Jewish children that were accepted by Britain, while their parents were let to die. Perhaps people justified themselves in the past in the same way.

I think a lot of the Jewsih children were sponsored, I'n guessing this means wealthy people funded them?

Are the cuts because there is no money? It's funny how the multi millionaire Tories cuts always punish the poor. Then they demonise all refugees by calling them cockroaches. This is a war on the most vulnerable, refugees and children included.

They can afford to look after the vulnerable in British society, as well as refugees and refugee children and their failure to do so is immoral.

[Samcro]

how can there be further cuts?
where from?
this is why sadly it can't be done.

[MumOnTheRunCatchingUp]

Well if we are going to take in this volume of people with such existing problems then we will have to accept ( IMO) that there will be further cuts. I truly think that's what will happen

I don't agree with it at all. But it will affect most of us in some way

[Tamponlady]

They don't have the foster carers and with many men pretending to be teens to claim asylum many won't take unaccompanied minors unles they are pre teen

[Samcro]

you can't cut the budgets anymore, unless you want the elderly and disabled to die.
already council tax is being put up to fund adult social care.<br />
in my area they are also cutting childrens. sn schools closing.

[amarmai]

so let's try to do better for these young evacuees fro the syrian war.

[Sparklycat]

If we cut the social care budget or police/nhs budgets even more to provide the care for the children then our own elderly and children will suffer (and everyone else when the crime rate and hospital treatment times go up). Cutting social care costs to provide is completely not an option in my opinion.

[w0lfgirl]

Yes and there were those poor children who never saw their parents again, sometimes siblings were split up too. I watched a TV documentary about this. Those evacuees are elderly being reunited with their families for the first time since the war. Sad.