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 am so bored of the way the same old bollocks is spouted often by the same posters on any thread where there is an opportunity to put their Britain and British first view forward. Always using the same tactics, the Whatabouting with the accusation that if you are not personally running the solution to any issue from start to finish then you are a hypocritic and a liberal leftie who forfeits any right to empathy or compassion. Plus the reluctance to address any points made that don't suit their agenda such as the fact that this discussion is related to children with families in the U.K. already and so the fostering discussion is irrelevant. We are seeing the worse refugee crisis and mass movement of people since the Second World War and the amount of children taken by the U.K. compared to other countries is shameful. And to say that feeling that shame is somehow indulging a desire to follow some kind of fashionable cause is really quite pitiful.

Bringing in children who will drain resources and negatively affect the welfare of uk kids is not charity. It's fucking over our lot, to look good.

There's always the typical "how many Syrian refugees are you helping" comments and the "we need to put our own first". But in my real life experience these always (and I do mean always, without exception) come from the people who I know damn well don't do anything for anybody, whether they're British, Syrian or from the moon.

On the other hand, people like myself who are up in arms about the refugee crisis can often (perhaps not always, but certainly often) be found donating money, time and resources to several causes at any given time, including looking after "our own".

Just my personal experience of people in my circle but I'd be gobsmacked if it didn't largely translate to the general population.

And no, it's not about virtue signalling or feeling good about yourself. It's just about having basic human empathy. There but for the grace of God and all that.

Had a google and you can get around £20 k a year for fostering. Add that to any benefits you get and its quite a good income. Something to look into.

I'm sorry but I feel this is the right decision.
We are not a bottomless pit of resources.

It's leading on Channel 4 news so not so quiet ...

We're a rich country. We don't need to be a "bottomless pit of resources" to do our share for a global refugee crisis.

I presume you think the Kindertransport was a bad idea as well?

3000 unaccompanied children triskele. With families already here who can take them in. That is what this thread is about. Not about throwing a bottomless pit of resources in unlimited directions.

So much ignorance being sprouted it's a joke.

They do age assess these children you know. It's a very intense and gruelling process. They are interrogated and interviewed for hours.

And he resources they get compared to British children in care is very scarce, even when they are granted leave to remain.

I will never understand the 'we must get our house' in order first. How is a child I've never met from slough any more of my household than a child I've never met from Syria.

Refugees in the care system don't take away any places from uk children already there. And very few of them enter the fostering system at all. Many of those I work with are in care but in supported lodgings rather than fostering and usually this is tenporary until their family over here can move to a place big enough for them.

Anyone who says it's more fashionable to care about those abroad has no idea. I work with children in the care system from all walks of life. I am incredibly passionate about making our care system as fair and as workable as possible for all children. Being in care is fucking shit. So is having to leave your country because of risk of death. Not just in Syria but in Sudan, Iran and Eritrea. Most of the kids I work with would love to go back but know they probably never can. And it's not at all easy for them.

I haven't read the full thread but my empathy evaporated fast when the last batch of 'child ' refugees were male, definitely not children and often bearded.

Going back to the OP, this hasn't been announced 'quietly'. It's simply not top of the news agenda anymore.

Well, I think the right choice has been made. I guess not many here will agree, but thankfully the government has the pulse of the nations opinions on the matter.

Pulse of the sound of the jack boots clicking. That's not a pulse. A pulse requires warm blood.

They do age assess these children you know. It's a very intense and gruelling process Yea, pull the other one.

Refugees in the care system don't take away any places from uk children already there That doesnt make sense.

350-syrian-refugee-children-will-be-allowed-to-settle-in-britain-thousands-less-than-promise When did the government promise to settle thousands? I am pretty sure they didn't.

If your children or family ever require refugee please remember your views. You will have to live by them.

When the winds blow the wrong way it may be you that needs refugue from your neighbours. Let's Hooe they see you as human and not inhumane

David Cameron made a pledge of 3000. It is literally in the original article.

You can scoff at age assessments all you want but I've witnessed them.

How doesn't it make sense? The kids currently not being fostered wouldn't go into the same homes that the UASC children are going into. We don't have a shortage of carers we have a shortage of those who will take complex or 'difficult' placements as they have extra needs.

If your children or family ever require refugee please remember your views. You will have to live by them.

^^This

When the winds blow the wrong way it may be you that needs refugue from your neighbours. Let's Hooe they see you as human and not inhumane

^^And this.

Some people's attitudes to CHILDREN, or humans in general, is fucking disgusting.

Motherofhowmany, Showmethewaytogohome,Bananagio et al.

You're pissing in the wind with this lot. You can't teach empathy. When you view the World as "them" and "us", see vulberable children as "ours" and "theirs" and equate caring with "virtue signalling", no amount of rational debate will ever change your view. People like IamWendy and AnnaForbes will only change their opinion if they ever find themselves on the shitty end of the stick so to speak.

"All refugees are really adult males" slow handclap. Well done for falling for the real fake news.
This lack of humanity and empathy is horrifying.
As a History teacher, my kids are readily making links between Nazi Germany and now (and I have bottom set), terrifying.

And to be blunt, I teach some year 7s who look at least 16 due to their heritage.

And to be blunt, I teach some year 7s who look at least 16 due to their heritage.

My DS has a friend who at 13 was 6' with a full beard and moustache (Asian heritage). He looked way older!

this is about children who already have family in the UK and are not in need of fostering.

Is that right? I thought is was the Dublin Regulations that were concerned with reuniting children with their families that were already here. I was under the impression that Dubs was about unaccompanied children who were not already covered by the Dubln Regs so would need fostering. Is that wrong? I have had a quick look and e.g. this seems to suggest that is right as do the other sources I have looked at. I have not followed it closely though so would welcome any direction from those who are certain that children coming here through the Dubs amendment don't require foster care.

Sorry to clarify the above. I thought that children coming in under Dubs would need some form of local authority care (which might be foster care but of course might be something else) as the purpose behind the amendment was (partly) to deal with those children who didn't have family here so couldn't come under the Dublin regs.

I thought the whole issue was that this commitment had been made but not resourced hence the refusal of local authorities (who are already being cash starved) to take the numbers originally suggested.

Is that not right?

I couldn't comment gini the ones I work with are in local authority care. However I will say that the LA I work for hasn't being refusing to take their share of these children. In fact the social workers and such I work with have been much more willing to help them than the home office.