Children!

 

Some of those thuggish looking brutes in the Daily Mail pictures must be 25 - 30 years old!

 

It will be interesting to see how many Lily Allen and Jude Law take in.

Assuming we're talking about unaccompanied two, three, four and five year olds, how do these children get to the camps in the first place? I can't imagine a child travelling across several countries on its own. How would it know which way to go and how would a child feed itself?

 

Or were the children actually born in the camps and then grew up there?

1 minute ago, halloween said:

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I have never denied that among the genuine refugees there are economic migrants, in fact the opposite.

 

So tell us, how many of these children do you believe are trying to get into the UK so they can work illegally?

Exactly the opposite. They will claim social security benefits and apply for their relatives to join them on "compassionate grounds"..

 

Have you not been paying attention; these children are joining relatives already in the UK!

 

Maybe those relatives will be able to claim some benefits due to the children joining them; but if you think the small amount that they will get (look it up) is worth the child braving the dangers of their journey, or the cost if they paid people traffickers, then you are very much mistaken.

 

4 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

BTW the most outstanding thing about muslim terrorism in Australia is the young age of the perpetrators. Most of the recent incidents fit the definition of children.

 

When all else fails, fall back on the old "Some Muslims are terrorists, therefore all Muslims are terrorists" fallacy.

4 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Children!

 

Some of those thuggish looking brutes in the Daily Mail pictures must be 25 - 30 years old!

 

Not in the pictures of children they don't!

 

5 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

It will be interesting to see how many Lily Allen and Jude Law take in.

 

Unless either of them have relatives in the camps; none. Only those with family already in the UK are being allowed in.

5 minutes ago, Xircal said:

Assuming we're talking about unaccompanied two, three, four and five year olds, how do these children get to the camps in the first place? I can't imagine a child travelling across several countries on its own. How would it know which way to go and how would a child feed itself?

 

Or were the children actually born in the camps and then grew up there?

 

Why are refugee children travelling alone?

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Have you not been paying attention; these children are joining relatives already in the UK!

 

Maybe those relatives will be able to claim some benefits due to the children joining them; but if you think the small amount that they will get (look it up) is worth the child braving the dangers of their journey, or the cost if they paid people traffickers, then you are very much mistaken.

 

 

When all else fails, fall back on the old "Some Muslims are terrorists, therefore all Muslims are terrorists" fallacy.

And you miss the point that if a child is joining an aunt or uncle, they then have the right to ask for admission of their parents and siblings, future spouse, her parents and siblings, and the snowball keeps growing.

If only 5% of M.E. muslims eventually turn to radicalism, the UK just admitted 15. not to mention the other inherent and expensive problems of psychological trauma damage, remedial language and social training and the other mental health/retardation problems caused by muslim inbreeding. why are the taxpayers never asked if they are willing to bear these costs?

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Not in the pictures of children they don't!

 

 

Unless either of them have relatives in the camps; none. Only those with family already in the UK are being allowed in.

 

And how do we know they have family in the UK. Because they've told us they have?

 

Our politicians and their hand wringing, do gooding chums fall for the old three card trick every time!

 

I remember the old mentally ill Englishman who was chained to the bars in the Pattaya monkey house. The politicians refused to help him! They wanna get their priorities in order.

The UK shouldn't be taking any of them. The French let them in, so they are responsible for them. 

3 minutes ago, stander said:

The UK shouldn't be taking any of them. The French let them in, so they are responsible for them. 

 

BINGO 

One person on suspension for nasty, inflammatory troll posting.   Any other takers?

 

 

2 hours ago, stander said:

To me "children" are 12 and under, the BBC also admit they are 'mostly' teenagers, not children.

 

 

 

Sorry officer, I thought over 12s are adults!

1 hour ago, stander said:

Your Kindertransport analogy, is below contempt, just shows how desperate you are to justify this invasion by economic migrants.

 

It is EXACTLY analogous.

1 hour ago, SgtRock said:

 

http://news.sky.com/story/migrants-attack-journalists-near-camp-in-northern-france-10620874

 

Of course, without any documentation they are all Syrian 

 

May I remind you that this thread is about CHILDREN ( under 18s)

1 hour ago, halloween said:

There is another difference. We can be certain that those on the Kindertransport were genuine refugees, whereas there is no such certainty for many of those in these camps. But you would prefer to ignore that inconvenient comparison I assume.

 

Go on, err on the side of caution! Be a devil!!

Nice video of the '' Children of Calais ''

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37674217

 

 

1 hour ago, halloween said:

And you miss the point that if a child is joining an aunt or uncle, they then have the right to ask for admission of their parents and siblings, future spouse, her parents and siblings, and the snowball keeps growing.

If only 5% of M.E. muslims eventually turn to radicalism, the UK just admitted 15. not to mention the other inherent and expensive problems of psychological trauma damage, remedial language and social training and the other mental health/retardation problems caused by muslim inbreeding. why are the taxpayers never asked if they are willing to bear these costs?

 

Because we're British. We're supposed to be civilised people. What do you want? A referendum? We've learnt NEVER to make that mistake again!

Well, I for one am horrified at the tone on here. We're discussing CHILDREN. Goodness me let's show a bit of humanity!

 

Look, I'm the one that's anti Muslim, but I'm the archangel Gabriel compared to some of you.

 

Maybe it's because I'm a dad. But I think we should take care of the children. 

 

I doubt I'll sleep tonight after reading all that unpleasantness...

11 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

Nice video of the '' Children of Calais ''

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37674217

 

 

 

Your point being? You don't like the look of them? What is your solution? Any positive ideas? Generosity of spirit?

10 hours ago, stander said:

Why should the U.K. taxpayer pick up the cost of opportunistic third world economic migrants?

 

The children in the OP would not be admitted to the UK if they or their families had been assessed as so called economic refugees.

 

IMO it erodes the TV brand when posters such as you constantly post misinformed extremely bigoted content.

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

These children have family in the UK, possibly the only family they have anywhere. Although the Home Secretary has said that there might be processes put into place to accept unaccompanied children who do not have family in the UK, at the moment those processes do not exist.

 

Those family members in the UK must be here legally; if they were not then the UK authorities would not know of them and so the children would not be classed as having family in the UK.

 

Whether these children are from Syria, Eritrea, Afghan, Sudan or anywhere else, they have fled conflict and so are refugees.

 

Whether or not their family paid traffickers does not stop them from being refugees. Many Jews escaping Nazi Germany paid large amounts to what today would be called people traffickers; does anyone believe those Jews were not genuine refugees?

 

Grouse has already mentioned the Kindertransport. Does anyone believe that these children should not have been accepted by the UK? After all, unlike these children in Calais, very few, if any, of them had family in the UK.

 

 

If their families are in the UK legally, then they would be able to bring their children over legally. That the children have to be trafficked says much.

 

The BBC showed some of the so called "children" arriving and they are NOT children. Children are small. These were as big as the adults around them.

This is a con, IMO.

14 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Your point being? You don't like the look of them? What is your solution? Any positive ideas? Generosity of spirit?

They aren't "children' as the propaganda claims. If they are from a country that would not be acceptable for refugee status for people a few years older than they, they shouldn't be accepted either.

 

The solution is easy. Those that want to support them can give all their money to them so they can stay at home. Most picked up on the Med admit that they are coming because Europe is rich and they can make money there and their children will be educated. Few are real refugees.

If their own countries are so bad, then they should stay there and make it better, not expect to sponge off other countries.

Something does not add up on any of these stories. According to what we are told, it costs thousands of $ to pay the traffickers, yet the "children" or their families clearly wouldn't have that sort of money. So, WHO IS PAYING?

They passed many borders and are living illegally out in the open, yet nothing was done to stop them, and France, a country we are told has laws, does nothing other than leave them to try and illegally enter another member of the EU.

 

We are obviously not being told the real story.

14 hours ago, Grouse said:

Well, I for one am horrified at the tone on here. We're discussing CHILDREN. Goodness me let's show a bit of humanity!

 

Look, I'm the one that's anti Muslim, but I'm the archangel Gabriel compared to some of you.

 

Maybe it's because I'm a dad. But I think we should take care of the children. 

 

I doubt I'll sleep tonight after reading all that unpleasantness...

If they were actually "children", you know- small people, no one would disagree, but they aren't "children". Of course, not having any documentation they can't even prove they are under 18.

14 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Because we're British. We're supposed to be civilised people. What do you want? A referendum? We've learnt NEVER to make that mistake again!

Never use that argument to a Catholic Irishman, or those islanders that got kicked off their land because the UK wanted to give it to the US for an air base.

 

Lets send them back to wherever they came from and support them there- what is wrong with that? Why do they HAVE to come to the UK?

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Something does not add up on any of these stories. According to what we are told, it costs thousands of $ to pay the traffickers, yet the "children" or their families clearly wouldn't have that sort of money. So, WHO IS PAYING?

They passed many borders and are living illegally out in the open, yet nothing was done to stop them, and France, a country we are told has laws, does nothing other than leave them to try and illegally enter another member of the EU.

 

We are obviously not being told the real story.

 

Within this topic it has already been posted under which EU & UK rules the children are permitted to enter the UK. If I recall correctly someone who has extensive experience with asylum seekers, Scott, has pointed out the children would not be permitted to legally enter the UK without relevant authorities being able to identify them and assess their circumstances.

 

It has been reported many times that those using people smugglers often either go into debt with the criminal gangs or utilise family saving.

 

I believe you're a UK national so I assume you know the legal definition in England of a child is someone aged under 18. On a personal note I was made a ward of government at age 16 due to family violence. I find it very mean spirited some TV members are disparaging those legally defined as children without knowing the facts of their particular circumstances.

23 hours ago, halloween said:

And you (7by7) miss the point that if a child is joining an aunt or uncle, they then have the right to ask for admission of their parents and siblings, future spouse, her parents and siblings, and the snowball keeps growing.

 

Do you seriously believe that parents are sending their unaccompanied children on a perilous journey of such distance in order to later gain entry to the UK themselves and then live off benefits?

 

Even if you do, even if the parents believe such a thing as well,  it shows that you and they are totally ignorant of the system in general and the access asylum seekers have to public funds.

 

It is excusable that the parents may be ignorant of the facts; you, with access to the UKVI website to discover them, have no excuse.

 

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If their families are in the UK legally, then they would be able to bring their children over legally. That the children have to be trafficked says much.

 

The family they have in the UK are not their parents; the children cannot apply to join parents who aren't here!

 

Where their parents are I cannot say, but can speculate.

 

Many are probably still at home or in a camp somewhere, having used all their savings to get their child out.

 

No doubt some are dead.

 

 

 

 

On 10/17/2016 at 3:08 PM, 7by7 said:

 

Why are refugee children travelling alone?

 

These people need to go South to places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. All Muslim countries: all safe to live in and all speak a common language.

On 10/16/2016 at 10:11 AM, Fithman said:

 

Why not ask these "children" why a Muslim state such as Saudi will not offer them "asylum" 

 

    Plan A ,  these mature  muslim  children are on a mission ,

          to  create a  Muslim , state in the UK . 

6 minutes ago, elliss said:

 

    Plan A ,  these mature  muslim  children are on a mission ,

          to  create a  Muslim , state in the UK . 

 

Maybe ---- The first of these very Large "children" have arrived in the UK.