Gransnet forums

Blogs

LucyGransnet (GNHQ) Thu 17-Nov-16 10:42:52

The wrong kind of refugee?

In recent years, the world has witnessed a refugee crisis that has forced more than a million men, women and children to flee the brutal violence in their own countries. Yet despite the life-threatening situations they face, these refugees (including children) have often been met with a degree of suspicion and fear in the nations they have escaped to.

Author Barbara Fox, whose own mother was evacuated from inner-city Newcastle as a child, wonders what the difference between Britain's long-ago children and today's refugees is?

Barbara Fox

The wrong kind of refugee?

Posted on: Thu 17-Nov-16 10:42:52

(999 comments )

Lead photo

Are today's refugees really any different?

When I read a headline recently about the outrage of a 'picturesque' village to which 70 'child migrants' were to be sent, I was reminded of another time in our history when places in the countryside were obliged to welcome strangers into their midst.

Back in 1940 when she was six years old, my mother, Gwenda, and her older brother, Doug, were among the hundreds of thousands of children who left their inner-city homes and were evacuated to the countryside to escape the German bombs.

Gwenda's main memory of her journey from Newcastle to the Lake District centres round the banana she was given to eat by her mother – the last she was to see for several years. A teacher ordered the children to sit on their bags, and consequently, when Gwenda came to unpack later, she found squashed banana over all her belongings.

On arrival in the pretty village of Bampton they were lined up in the church hall while the villagers came to choose who they wanted. Yes, it does seem unbelievable that that was how the evacuees were billeted to their families! You might imagine that Gwenda and Doug – clean, nicely dressed children - would have been snapped up first (they would surely be the refugees that no one would protest about today!). But actually, that was not the case. Gwenda was the youngest child there as she was tagging along with Doug and his class of nine-year-olds - their mother had insisted that the pair should not be separated. Consequently, the locals were expecting older children, and someone of Gwenda's size probably didn't look very useful in this farming community.

Were these home-grown children that our rural communities welcomed back then really so different from the oft-maligned refugee children today?


Gwenda and Doug were the only children left when the wife of the village headmaster arrived. As the mother of two sons, she had to be persuaded to take a girl. However, she relented, and so the children went home with her. They would spend three happy years living in the schoolhouse and Gwenda would keep in touch with the couple she called 'Aunty' and 'Uncle' for the rest of their lives.

The following year, in more desperate circumstances, Bampton opened its doors to another influx of children, this time from the shipbuilding town of Barrow-in-Furness.

Undoubtedly thousands of lives were saved by this evacuation of the nation's children, and indeed, Gwenda and Doug's own street in Newcastle was bombed.

Britain also welcomed refugees from Europe, including thousands of Jewish children who might otherwise have perished.

Were these home-grown children that our rural communities welcomed back then really so different from the oft-maligned refugee children today? I would go so far as to say that the inner-city children who turned up in Bampton were often just as alien to their rural hosts as the foreign newcomers seem to be to the 'picturesque' village dwellers. But equally, both could teach something to the other.

Those harking back to 'when Britain was great' perhaps forget that it was also characterised by our opening our doors to those in need.

When the War Is Over by Barbara Fox, the story of Gwenda’s wartime evacuation, is published by Sphere and is available from Amazon.

By Barbara Fox

Twitter: @Gransnet

MawBroon Wed 01-Feb-17 20:49:22

Or not.

Mair Wed 01-Feb-17 20:55:26

Health Tourism on Hospital tonight, 9.00pm on BBC2.

That is in response to the report issued today

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-failing-recover-unpaid-bills-overseas-patients-mps-report-a7556156.html

Whitehall research puts the cost to taxpayers of health tourism at anywhere between £200million and £2billion a year

Today's scathing report says:
Britain is among the worst countries in Europe at extracting payments from foreign patients;
Four in five hospitals do not expect to start recouping more money

rosesarered Wed 01-Feb-17 20:59:10

I am just amazed at these figures for doctors being struck off the medical register! in five years that's over a 100 per year.I always thought it was rare.

durhamjen Wed 01-Feb-17 21:48:24

Not in response to any report. It's the fourth programme in a series on BBC2 which was palanned a while ago. The beginning of every programme has shown a man going to talk to a patient about paying for treatment.
If anything it's the other way round.

How can you trust a report that gives such a wide difference - £200 million to £2 billion. It shows that there is no real collection of statistics.
If the NHS did away with the internal market, they could save £3 billion.

Jalima Wed 01-Feb-17 21:50:07

I was recently reading comment by British doctors working iN Australia, and despite the better lifestyle and hours, none wanted to remain there permanently.
None means 'not one'! That cannot be true.

I don't know how long 'permanently' is either as I know of several doctors in Australia (including DD's GP and consultant) who have been there for 20 or more years and have never indicated that they want to come back.
Plus many, many nurses and midwives.

Mind you, perhaps not so many will be able to go in future as the list of eligible occupations changes constantly and they may not be required.
Australia increased the number of training places for their own students and therefore do not require so many doctors from overseas.

JessM Wed 01-Feb-17 22:14:41

Of course there is no collection of statistics. Hospitals would have to ask all emergency patients to turn up with their passports...
Hard to measure - there are genuine emergencies that occur to visitors. There are also lots of countries that have a reciprocal agreements.
All figures complete guesses.
If the government really thought there was a significant amount of money being lost then they could pass a law that all tourists and visitors have to have health insurance. But they don't know whether it is a significant problem or not (might cost more to collect the data and change the rules...)

stillaliveandkicking Wed 01-Feb-17 22:20:19

Yes of course there are the wrong kind of anything.

Mair Wed 01-Feb-17 22:20:28

I was recently reading comment by British doctors working iN Australia, and despite the better lifestyle and hours, none wanted to remain there permanently.
None means 'not one'! That cannot be true

Dont be silly of course I am not saying NO British doctors emigrate there permanently, I was simply referring to the maybe dozen posts I read. My point was that many of the BRitish docs who go to Oz go for a spell then come home, just like Ozzie doctors here. Doctors (and all immigrants) who come here from low to medium income countries, on the other hand, almost always want to remain for ever.

Mair Wed 01-Feb-17 22:22:35

Australia increased the number of training places for their own students and therefore do not require so many doctors from overseas

Well as you say it takes twenty years to gain the full benefit of that, but Australia is doing the right thing, as should we.

Ana Wed 01-Feb-17 22:27:23

I watched the programme.

Totally unrealistic to expect the patients shown in that programme to pay the thousands of pounds they were being invoiced for (there may be many others who are willing and able to pay, but they weren't mentioned).

It did make me realise how much it actually costs the NHS to treat and care for patients though - upwards of £800 a day and far more for intensive care.

durhamjen Wed 01-Feb-17 22:38:27

You are funny, Ana. You don't believe anything you see in real life, even, if it's against your beliefs.
First of all, you are complaining that money is not collected from those that should pay; then when you are shown that money is collected, you say it's totally unrealistic.
That's what people want, isn't it?
Mair definitely wants it to happen.

Have you watched all the other programmes - one about a man waiting for an operation for cancer who had to give up his operation because a woman was arriving from Norwich to have an aortic aneurysm operation. He had his operation later, but died before Christmas.
All of them are to do with the pressures on intensive care, A&E, etc. It is not the fact that there are too many foreigners getting away with not paying. It's to do witth the fact that the government does not want to fund the NHS properly.

Mair Wed 01-Feb-17 22:39:28

They were discussing todays report on LBC earlier. As one caller said nobody should be allowed into the country without health insurance, and if airlines do not bother checking before boarding, then they should have to pay costs if they deliver a sick person to our country.

Visibly pregnant women shouldnt even be allowed on a plane. A former Heathrow policeman said that even in the 90s every flight coming in from Nigeria would have numerous heavily pregnant women disembarking, while an ex nurse said as long ago as the 80s she worked in Kingston hospital and theyd have frequent cases of people coming by taxi straight from H'row 'collapsing' on the floor.

British people must be the softest most gullible people in the world and a laughing stock. No other country tolerates this, not even Sweden!

Mair Wed 01-Feb-17 22:42:38

It is not the fact that there are too many foreigners getting away with not paying

Oddly phrased nonsense from DJ

Of course its a 'fact'!

Jalima Wed 01-Feb-17 22:48:03

You are funny, Ana.
Ana - have you had a reversal procedure done between that thread and this one?

Jalima Wed 01-Feb-17 22:54:09

Dont be silly

No, I am not silly
Just repeating your words I was recently reading comment by British doctors working iN Australia, and despite the better lifestyle and hours, none wanted to remain there permanently

Presumably you meant the comparatively few who were commenting on a website who had not settled for whatever reason and wanted to come back to the UK, or just went for a few years to gain experience.

POGS Wed 01-Feb-17 22:57:44

News night discussing Health Tourism now.

Mair Wed 01-Feb-17 22:58:12

Yes Jalima I think thats fairly obvious - as I explained in my 20.08

Rigby46 Wed 01-Feb-17 23:04:48

Airlines checking insurance? Get real. It would have to work both ways - it's not unknown for UK tourists to go abroad without insurance you know? Also, you can have an insurance policy to wave at the airline but if you haven't, for example, declared your pre existing conditions, it won't be worth the paper it's written on. I'm not saying that the present situation couldn't be improved but it should be kept in proportion - tighter controls have a financial implication attached to them as well.

Mair Wed 01-Feb-17 23:06:14

Evan Davies grinning like a monkey suggesting it wouldnt be worth the cost of screening.
Good to see the Welsh doctor correct his nonsense.

Rigby46 Wed 01-Feb-17 23:07:43

* Mair* do you have to post such unpleasant comments so frequently?

Jalima Wed 01-Feb-17 23:14:07

Yes you did explain it after calling me silly.

your first post was not clear - except perhaps to yourself.

durhamjen Wed 01-Feb-17 23:15:51

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/cnn-mohammed-tawfeeq-trump-travel-ban-lawsuit

Trump might regret being so quick off the mark.

Mair Thu 02-Feb-17 00:17:07

Rigby46
I hope you have been equally critical of the posters who made absolutely vile comments about Melania Trump on the other thread? She is a woman thrust in celebrity status as FLOTUS through no choice of her own, and surely deserves more considerate treatment.

Evan Davies who has chosen to be anchor on the BBCs prime news program is absolutely an open target for whatever criticism viewers think he deserves. We do not have to be polite about TV presenters or politicians!

Oh dear Jalima do stop playing the victim card. I did not 'call you silly', I told you not to be silly; rather different.

I dont regard you as a particularly 'silly' person, but your misinterpretation of my earlier post , whether deliberate or not, was very silly.

Rigby46 Thu 02-Feb-17 00:42:30

Mair it was the monkey comment. I'm not revisiting the MT thread but a general comment I would make is that if we're discussing issues, the physical appearance of someone shouldn't be commented on either positively or negatively IMO

Mair Thu 02-Feb-17 00:57:58

There were plenty of comments on Melanias physical appearance. I just wondered if you were critical of those commenting?
Well, were you? No need to revisit thread.
Come to that there have been rude comments made about Trumps physical appearance too. Again did you criticise those being 'unpleasant'?

I suspect youre a fan of Evan and its one rule for those you like another for those you dont. hmm

As a general rule I think its fine to criticise celebrities who have chosen to be in the public eye, unkind to attack their wives or family though, especially when like Melania they are new to the role and probably feeling insecure. Nobody was mean to Michelle ever despite the fact that she chose to take a very public role and thus arguably made herself an acceptable target, as did Cherie Blair.

My point about Evan wasnt even directly about his appearance but his annoying mannerisms. But as I said politicians and media types fair game!

This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion