U.K. 'Quietly' announced it won't be taking anymore unaccompanied child refugees

[Motherofhowmany]

Absolutely appalling, we've only resettled 350 of the promised 3000.

I work with some of these children. The things they have seen are horrendous.

www.independent.co.uk/news/only-350-syrian-refugee-children-will-be-allowed-to-settle-in-britain-thousands-less-than-promised-a7569691.html

I'd absolutely love to take some in if that were an option. Thing is under Dubs they have family waiting for them. Probably better they go to aunts and uncles than me.

crumbs I think you are mixing up the Dublin agreement, where children are brought to live with relatives already here and the dubs amendment where children who do not have family here are accomodated and supported.

Clearly they could only bring as many children for whom they can offer places, in foster care.

*I don't think it's reasonable to announce that you are ashamed of your country, for not taking in extra children, when you yourself are not".

Well, I think my country should have an NHS but I'm not prepared to perform heart surgery myself...

Seriously, though, I think you are assuming that the only way these children can be helped is through individuals fostering them, and given the shortage of foster carers this would put other children at risk. But there is no reason why other alternatives shouldn't be considered. It is very much the fashion to foster children in care, but other countries make more use of children's homes - not massive red-brick institutions, but groups of children living with carers in normal houses. For many older children, or children who have been severely traumatised, this kind of arrangement may be more beneficial than having to adapt to living in someone else's family.

But you are still expecting to find people to work in a children's home, appropriately qualified, ready and willing to work. You also need appropriate buildings.
I don't think it quite works as quickly as you would like!
I don't perform heart surgery either, but although I'd like a NHS I don't think I can really complain if no one is able and willing to do the work.

Are you thinking of moving carers away from elderly care? Where exactly are you getting them from?

Headofthehive, will it blow your mind if I tell you that many refugees, now settled in the UK, work in elderly care?

I know this for certain because my friends are among them. Some of them are even men. Who came to the UK as adults and retrained in social care and nursing.

In fact, if you're in the right part of the country, and you or any of your family have been in hospital or receiving care in the last 5 years, you may well have been at their tender mercies.

So you might want to keep your trap shut about your distaste for refugees while you're in hospital. You may well be being being looked after by one. My friends are very lovely people and very professional, and would look after you regardless, but I don't want them upset by shit from you.

Oh and BTW, their children who came here while quite young - you know, those dreaded families who follow on behind so that the children can be safe as well? They're also now training for healthcare.

And they have British accents. So if you meet them you'll have no idea.

The Dubs agreement applied to children who already had family here in UK who wanted to care for them
Crumbs is that the case? Quite a number of people have said this on the thread very vehemently but I was under the impression that that was the Dublin regs and the Dubs amendment is about children who do not fall under Dublin and don't have family to care for them here. Can you clarify the point? It's an important one because if you are right then all of the points about resource scarcity diminish.

Apologies, The Dublin agreement is enshrined in law and allows for reset to force refugee children in country of safety.
Dubs amendment is about safe passage for child refugees to U.K. with or without family. Agreement was (I think) that those with relatives would be given safe passage with immediate effect and others needing local authority care would follow. 350 is the number to date.
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigning/protect-refugee-children

Exactly. I think people get confused between the two similar sounding agreements. It is not a straightforward task, to care for children. I do understand those children may grow up and become carers, just like lots of children may do, and that there are already people here who have come from overseas that works in our case system. There is a time lag and it's not instant. However, I am quite pragmatic about the logistical difficulty and I would prefer any money and Spare carers available in our country to be put towards care for people in our hospitals who are ill.

I just think it's a really crap argument that we shouldn't save children if it would inconvenience us in any way.

Equally, people should be saved by having their surgery when needed. However I've had to tell people that their surgery is cancelled due to lack of resources. There isn't just one pressure on us, there are many competing pressures. it's not possible to help everyone, all the time.

It's not just about it inconveniencing us dorcas, it's about it having a very real negative impact on others who are already in desperate need of services. It's also about not being able to provide for those children if we take them all in.
There are some loose arguments in here for not taking more children - cultural differences etc. But having nowhere to put the children, now where to keep them safe and no resources to provide what they need is a real problem. As has been pointed out by people on the thread. Even if they have family waiting for them or isn't always the case that they can go to those family members and certainly not immediately. Finding foster care places for children is already really tough so what do we do if we take in more children knowing that we already have a huge shortage of foster places? Where do we put the children?

Equally, people should be saved by having their surgery when needed. However I've had to tell people that their surgery is cancelled due to lack of resources.

Presumably the operation gets rescheduled? Not cancelled indefinitely? It's not really the same is it. We're talking about those fleeing possible death.

We're talking about those fleeing possible death

Are the children pp are talking about currently in France? If so, is there a reason they cannot claim refugee status in France?

Genuine questions btw, I don't know much about this matter.

Are the children pp are talking about currently in France? If so, is there a reason they cannot claim refugee status in France?

Well as has been explained countless times, it depends whether you think Europe should work together to help in this situation or not, personally I feel we as a country have a responsibility to take people in and not just let France deal with it.

Nevermind, that doesn't answer my question but obviously asking for factual information is stupid.

Bit morning just france dealing with it juju. Greece is under a lot more pressure than France from asylum seekers and they have less money to deal with it. People in the Calais region of France trying to get to England don't want to be in France or the other countries that they have passed through to get to France. They are in class because they want to come to England. Some of them
Might want to come to England because they have family here or because they speak the language or some of them because they have been fed A story about it being the promised land where the streets are paved in gold. I think whatever asylum seekers we do take we should be taking directly from refugee camps in places like Syria to discourage people from making dangerous journeys across water and several countries to reach here. I know I was fleeing for my life I would just be happy to reach a safe country - any safe country. We do have a responsibility to share the burden of asylum seekers with the rest of Europe but I don't think the majority of that responsibility lies in taking asylum seekers who are in France.

juju whilst waiting for the cancer to spread, or the aneurysm to burst...leading to certain death. Re scheduling operations is not a risk free option.

I've often been in the position of speaking to two patients, one of whom gets the bed and I'm telling one to go back home.

It's not that I'm an uncaring person, far from it, but I do think you have to go with what the councils say they could provide and stop there.

They can claim refugees taus in France. But they want to get to England as they see it as better.

. The boys are sent to create a safe place, to start earning and to become educated so they can help their families

Crumbs this sounds like economic migrants not where the situation is so dangerous that to stay would put your life in danger.
You cannot have it both ways. If it so dangerous to stay on in the family home then why not bring your wife and children. If you expect your wives and children to follow when at some point in time in the future you have learned the language and got a job and got a place to live then you either don't care for your family or the situation isn't that bad. (I am being facetious again)

Being employable in a foreign land should be the last thought on your mind if you are fleeing bombs

Those are good points oliversmum. Like I said earlier, if I was fleeing for my life I wouldn't be bothered which country I was seeking asylum in, I would simply be glad to be in a safe country. I do think many of the migrants at Calais are there because they believe England is paved with gold, although for some it is due to family already being here.
My grandparents came here from the West Indies in the 1950's as part of the windrush and they were most certainly economic migrants (but obviously they were British citizens so could freely come here and work).
My grandmother sent her husband on first to secure work and find somewhere to live and she followed him once he was reasonably settled. Had she been terrified for her life she would have gone with him on the boat but she was in a comfortable position and could afford to wait a year or two whilst my grandad sorted out a life here. She always said she would have stayed in her home country had things not worked out for my grandad. I too think that the situation with those seeking asylum is entirely different. Although there is probably an element of the young men being sent because they are seen as more important than women in some cultures so they save the men and leave the women to live in terror.

Otoh my grandfather sent my grandmother and his children on first. No room for all of them. He followed but was caught