can some one tell me about the child migrants

[2shoes]

why were they sent to australia, did they not have families over here.....

They weren't sent to Australia specifically to be abused were they? No one knew this would happen to them, did they?

'fraid so, duelling, the British government was warned way back in the early 50s, IIRC, about what was going on. But still continued to send children for another decade.

Tend to agree with Edam (what turn up for the books!) that the british govt probably had a good idea of what was happening but I doubt that it could be proved one way or the other. I think the thing was in those bygone times was that there was a very naieve attitude about the needs of children and how they were cared for. In children's homes in the first part of this century babies and children were continually cared for by different nursers/carers becasue they thought it was bad for a baby or child to get attached to a particular person! I don't think they were being intentionally hard hearted it's just what they believed.

I am no supporter of regimes that shipped young children out to the colonies at all, far from it, it was a horrendous thing to do and these children were in fact stolen as most of them had parents here who could not care for them for a variety of reasons. It has to be remembered that there was no welfare state in those days and if families turned out young single pregnant girls as they often did, they had no way of supporting their child.

The Magdalene homes in Ireland were truly terrible places where young "fallen" women were put to work in laundries for years and their babies removed to institutionalised care or "sold" to American families. (Story of Philomena Lee's lost child) These poor young women had no idea that the nuns really had no authority to keep them in these places, but they knew no better and again had nowhere to go if they ever thought of trying to escape.

Again it looks like these nuns were being deliberately cruel but I think they believed that "fallen" women had to have the devil "beaten out of them" to atone for their sons.

The recent scandal about the child abuse covered up in Ireland by the christian brothers and the police and church is another case in point. Thak god we have moved on................

Tend to agree with Edam (what turn up for the books!) that the british govt probably had a good idea of what was happening but I doubt that it could be proved one way or the other. I think the thing was in those bygone times was that there was a very naieve attitude about the needs of children and how they were cared for. In children's homes in the first part of this century babies and children were continually cared for by different nursers/carers becasue they thought it was bad for a baby or child to get attached to a particular person! I don't think they were being intentionally hard hearted it's just what they believed.

I am no supporter of regimes that shipped young children out to the colonies at all, far from it, it was a horrendous thing to do and these children were in fact stolen as most of them had parents here who could not care for them for a variety of reasons. It has to be remembered that there was no welfare state in those days and if families turned out young single pregnant girls as they often did, they had no way of supporting their child.

The Magdalene homes in Ireland were truly terrible places where young "fallen" women were put to work in laundries for years and their babies removed to institutionalised care or "sold" to American families. (Story of Philomena Lee's lost child) These poor young women had no idea that the nuns really had no authority to keep them in these places, but they knew no better and again had nowhere to go if they ever thought of trying to escape.

Again it looks like these nuns were being deliberately cruel but I think they believed that "fallen" women had to have the devil "beaten out of them" to atone for their sons.

The recent scandal about the child abuse covered up in Ireland by the christian brothers and the police and church is another case in point. Thak god we have moved on................

Oh god I've done it again - sorry posted twice!

While you are stuck on this thread, Nana... what do you reckon to this?

Oops, linked to this thread by mistake!

I meant this

It is shocking and on another thread I have just said that I always suspected that the GCSC was not going to be able to cope with everything within it's remit. I think however that the article (like a lot of press reports) has exaggerated some of the issues. I am referring to "hundreds of social work staff inclusinf paedophiles were left to work with vulnerable children etc" _ I believe this to be a gross exaggeration of the facts. I subscribe to Community Care and read the articles related to the failings of the GCSC in that publication and it does cite one case of a sw who covered up the fact that her partner was abusing their child. Horrendous and unimaginable that a sw could do such a thing. I think this case has been exaggerated and distorted by the press.

I have never tried to say that there aren't problems in social work and like any profession/job there are going to be people who are unfit to practice. Doctors nurses and teachers can get struck off for gross misconduct and this is how it should be. The fact that financiers and bankers get away with it is grossly unfair but there you go. Anyone who works with vulnerable people and is involved in any kind of misconduct is utterly deplorable and should be struck off.

I think some posters seem to have the idea that I think there are no problems in social work and child protection. If you are interested I have just listed 10 problems with the system on another thread about the failings of the GCSC.

I hope that the GCSC is properly resourced and executed so that there are no longer these horrendous delays in dealing with people who have no right to be anywhere near vulnerable people.

However I will continue to support the vast majority of social workers who work tirelessly day in and day out in a very stressful job in order to support and protect vulnerable children.

This gives you specific releases from the GSCC
www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/

Nananina didnt the kids born in the nunnery just have numbers for names so it was easier to adopt them. The lasses that found that they where with child where sent into slavery really back them.

There are kids now adults out there that have no identity now because of this. The ones that got sent to Australia I mean.

In the beginning the government didnt know but then chose to ignore it and kept sending the kids over. So sad.

Sorry ment sold

DollyPs - I haven't heard that children were not given names and certainly in the case that I have just read about "The lost child of Philomena Lee" the little Irish boy who was adopted by an American couple had a name though the adoptors changed his name even though he was 3 years old at the time of his adoption.

The little boy grew to be a famous lawyer and very high up in American politics but tried desperately hard to trace his mother bakc in Ireland. He went back to the convent where he was born and even though the nuns knew that his birth mother still lived in a nearby village they would not give him any information about her, telling him that they had no information as the records had all been destroyed in a fire, which was a lie. At the same time he was searching for his mother, she was searching for him and she too went back to the convent to ask the nuns if they knew anything - again she was met with a blank wall. He actually died of HIV and by the time his birth mother found about him and his life he was dead. SO sad and so terrible of these nuns to lie and deceive people in this way.

If you are interested in the child migrants the book to read is "Empty Cradles" by Margaret Humphreys which tells the whole dreadful story but I warn you, you canot help but be upset by this book.