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

No chance Valentine, it's a public forum, don't be so condescending.

I was referring to the ME conflict rather than the refugee situation.

So would it have been better if the 2 dictators had been left in power Valentine?

I think the aid money would be better spent giving more children an education in the areas they are already. That way we can help more children. It's about priorities I think, and for me bringing children here isn't one for me.
There are other areas that we need to help too, such as vulnerable young adults that leave care in the uk at 18 are much more likely to die before 25.
The u.k. Did give more money than was actually pledged to help refugees.

woodhill
You asked for it. You got it.
And you are still refusing to believe that there could be other perspectives to this AND you have the gall to not answer my questions and ask a question in response to them. Big deal. Best thing I can recommend is to get a paper and pen and try and connect the Medelling in Mid East with them dictators and see how you connect the refugee crisis with that.

The whole point of it being a public forum is to be able to say things openly that we can't sometimes say in real life out of a lot of constraints (time and space being the most obvious one). You talk nonsense. You get called out for it. What do you want? A couple of medals for being noncondescending and ill informed plus indifferent?

In your opinion Valentine and I thought the question to you about the dictators was perfectly valid.

What question did you want me to answer Valentine btw

No. the perfect response to my question would have been "can you please elaborate what your experience has been? What did you see that makes you think removing the dictators was such a bad move? What kind of losses do you think those countries have suffered compared to if we hadn't gone on to poke our nose in these?" And of course the major one that somehow you have not really thought of even mentioning "why were there no weapons of mass destruction found when we actually attacked them on that and that basis only?"

There are at least five questions in my posts. I have elaborated the most obvious ones in this last post.

But the point is if you read my posts was that I didn't think it was such a great idea to get rid of the dictators in the first place. I'm not disputing your experiences.

Yes and I did remember about the weapons but you are right I don't care that much and why do I have to?

You posted at 22.38 yesterday:
"Tony Blair totally ignored many people's wishes about not going into Iraq and Libya has been destabilised, granted we got rid of 2 dictators but it is complicated".

granted we got rid of 2 dictators but it is complicated
That's the bit there.

Yes I did. I remember the issue about how Saddam had been gassing the Kurds so it may have been better for them once he had been deposed.

Is the ME problem not complex, that's what I was implying. I think TB should not have gone into Iraq.

You also posted at 11.32 yesterday:
"Yes but we have always taken our share and give a generous aid budget.

We do not have enough housing as it is and what about their ideology. Some of the newcomers hate our values but that's just wonderful."

i haven't gone back to see all your posts but just these two are enough to get along with.
People like you are under the impression that we, the British, are some real humane superpower who made a mistake by attacking the middle eastern nations and destabilised an already burning area using false claims; we are kinda making up for it by giving aid and support to some refugees whose generations will be utterly grateful for our generosity etc; yeah we we lying about the weapons of mass destruction and yes none of these nations attacked USA on 9/11 but STILL folks! Look we are short of two dictators, aren't we? THATS something, isn't it?

Sorry to break it to you but OUR interventions install dictators in the nation's we wanted to attack later on: read the history of Iraq/Pakistan/Etc etc. They serve till we wanted them to. Then became the "at least no dictators" support for the war monger a and their supporters. Convenient, isn't it?
Then you loudly wonder why the middle easterners don't give you warm hugs, wet kisses on cheeks and floor sweeping bows in return for your generosity.

People like me? Interesting. I'll say goodnight.

On a scale of 1-10, Bush AND Blair (because please accept it, we didn't lead it all, we were just the lapdogs bits in it all though I am sure if the public is allowed to dig deeper, we will find massive beneficiaries round in UK) destroyed Iraq to about 20.
It will take at least two more generations to rid of what we have done there.
Tony Blair "shouldn't have gone there" is a blatant minimising of this massive destruction and of our YOUNG soldiers too whose dying thoughts would have been the pride they felt in having done their bit for "saving" their country from.... the weapons of mass destruction. can you see how absurd your comments sound? Once you start accepting absurdities, you are close to accepting downright atrocities too, without question.
So I will rephrase it: we shouldn't say "Tony Blair shouldn't have gone into Iraq". We should say "why in the world that piece of shit is walking free if we are a people's democracy?"
The majority of people still talking this way in this country are those who lost young sons and daughters there. And you are among those Woodhill who are openly fine with stopping the ones coming into this country who can keep this question alive.