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've signed the petition and will be writing (again) to my MP about this.

Now, as in the 30s, people prefer to sit within their cosy prejudices - and, of course, the DM reassures them that their moral compass is absolutely fine.

What does it mean to put your own house in order first? Make sure every single individual in the UK is A-OK before you will help any child outside our borders? Not open the door to a screaming child in the road if it risks your child catching a draft? What I suspect it means is: "Do FA and pretend that that is a fine upstanding moral principle."

It is an interesting question though. Its understandable why posters are willing to help foster refugee children but why is it seemingly impossible to get enough foster care for UK children? There is a disconnect.

It's classic virtue signalling. It's normal, common...expected even to care about the people who you live among. Evolution has made it this way, those who are like us, near us, might be related to us.
It's SOOOO much more fashionable to care about the foreigners, those who are different to us, it says "I'm a better person than you, as I help those who I have zero vested interest in'.

I think posters are willing to help foster refugee children because the need is so obvious and so acute and they are very keen to help.

The reality of fostering is that even if you want to, there are any number of obstacles. You need to have at least one spare room, you need to be able to not have paid employment, and you usually need not to have your own young children. I don't think the problem with domestic fostering is lack of people with good intentions.

Ah I see... so expressing concern for the world's most vulnerable children is actually a sign that you're a shallow show-off? Got it

how much do you get paid to foster a refugee?

Well, you don't get paid a different amount, so far as I know. I think local authorities set their own rates for paying foster carers (I may be wrong on this) and you would get paid more for additional care needs. So the amount you would be paid would depend on all sorts of factors - number of children, ages, care needs. Generally, though, the pay is very poor, the demands are very high, and hence the shortage of foster carers. With all the goodwill in the world, I can't think of many of my friends who have a spare room, no young children, and don't need to work.

It's SOOOO much more fashionable to care about the foreigners, those who are different to us, it says "I'm a better person than you, as I help those who I have zero vested interest in'.

I work for a charity. I spend my whole day helping people from my own country (and sometimes refugees and immigrants). What do you do?

I find it very, very sad indeed that some people not only don't care about the less fortunate themselves, but can't comprehend that anyone else could either.

You can express concern dorcus, but shipping in thousands of 'children' to overwhelm the scant services we already struggle to keep going is stupid. Why should our teens get shat on because some pearl clutchers want to feel good?

These 'children' are in France! Wtf is so important about getting them over a few miles of sea when they are already safe?

Also this idiotic "virtue signalling" theory of why people care about refugees doesn't even WORK. Think about it - who are we supposed to be showing off to, exactly, if nobody else cares either? How can it be 'virtue signalling' if nobody really considers the action virtuous?

A question I often ask too, 53rd.

Do all the charity work you can handle, 53rd, but don't ask me to jeopardise the wellbeing of local children for the sake of your saintly projects. Thankfully the government are sensible, and have put a stop to it.

Why is France suddenly a place people need saving from? Nobody has answered that yet.

I have written to my MP and will sign the Change petition.

Britain was struggling a lot more in the 1930s than we are now. Should we have refused to accept the Kinder transport children? Like we refused their parents and let them die in Nazi- occupied Europe?

None of the people arguing about fostering want to accept the fact that these are kids who have family in the UK.

The vast majority of refugees do end up in countries neighbouring their own, IamWendy - countries that are usually far poorer than ours. The international community is understandably concerned to ensure the burden is spread equally. At the moment the UK takes far less than our 'share'. And - think about it - if we take the attitude, "Why can't they just all stay in France" we are incentivising France to just not notice when they slip across the Channel. It's in everybody's interest that we treat this problem as a global community, with every country contributing.

IamWendy - for the third/4th/5th time on this thread - the children who have been offered asylum here are children with family in the UK. No one is going to be doing any fostering.

Now go and take your frothy xenophobia elsewhere, there's a dear.

Sadly IMHO this just another thing on the long list. The government has been taking money from all services to do with the vulnerable: health, care for the elderly, social services, mental health. Even services used by all like schools. This country no longer has the infrastructure to help its own needy citizens and a government with an ideology that goes against helping those that can't help themselves.

Ha ha, Wendy. So now that you've learned many of us actually are helping British people, you've reclassified it as more 'sainted projects' you can sneer at? Gosh, it's almost like you don't care about British kids either!

Inspired by IamWendy I made a donation to Safe Passage while I was signing the Citizens UK petition.

Realistically, how many young children will be stuck at Calais when the rest of their family has made it to the UK?
I don't get the "their family are already here waiting for them". Why were they left behind?

Uh, ok 53rd. Not really sure what you mean tbh, I am only talking about the 'children' in France who people seem to think need saving from the French. But, it's neither here nor there, as it's been stopped.

Oh, beatrice! How wonderfully kind of you!! You ARE such an inspiration. I am so glad you felt the need to tell us ALL about your charitable deeds. Otherwise, how could we marvel at your generosity!?

Flogging - they are children who have other family here: cousins, uncles, whatever. Not that their mum and dad and siblings got on the ferry and left one of them in the loo at the ferry terminal. Many don't know where their immediate family are. That's what happens in a war.

Floggingmolly, these are often extended family - uncles and aunts, for example, who are prepared to take the children into their own families.

But I think ;people often fail to understand the realities of refugee life. Families get splintered, they often do get split up if one gets a visa before others. They often lose essential paperwork which would allow them to prove, for example, their age. It's not like booking a package holiday.

Wendy, I'm referring to your repeated comments about how those who feel the UK should take more refugees are merely 'virtue signalling' and don't care enough to help British kids.

I help vulnerable British kids. And yet also care about non-British kids fleeing war zones, drowning in the Mediterranean, etc! And you do... what, exactly? Apart from 'virtue signalling' your nationalist credentials on Mumsnet, of course...