Children’s Asylum Centre ‘too welcoming’ 😢

NanaDana

A well-written article, certainly worth a read, And please don't say it must be total c**p because it's in the Daily Mail. That particular rag is more likely to be pushing the views of Jenrick and his apologists. I was surprised to see it had been published there. Will it change any minds? Only the open ones, perhaps.. www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12297233/PROFESSOR-FRANK-FUREDI-contempt-unelected-buffoons-House-Lords.html

I thought that was an excellent article and I posted it but put it under the wrong heading so hoping to get it changed to Politics Thread.

There's a difference between putting out a welcome sign for those who have yet to enter the UK, and in the way in which we choose to treat vulnerable children who are already here in a detention centre. Surely where such children are concerned, who are now in our "care", whether we like it or not, purposeful punishment, discrimination, or any form of negative message as regards their ongoing welfare and security will only add to their trauma. How can removing welcome signs and painting over nursery-style murals be considered, at best, as anything other than mean-spirited, and at worst, as cruel and unusual treatment. Can anyone explain to me exactly what else such a callous act will achieve? It will make no difference to the outcome of the investigations into their asylum requests. As for Jenricks ongoing wriggling and prevarications, I expect no less from the man. A shameful episode, and IMO, indefensible.

We must agree to disagree Wyllow. As is well known here I don’t welcome people arriving without permission when they could have stayed in another safe country.

A well-written article, certainly worth a read, And please don't say it must be total c**p because it's in the Daily Mail. That particular rag is more likely to be pushing the views of Jenrick and his apologists. I was surprised to see it had been published there. Will it change any minds? Only the open ones, perhaps.. www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12297233/PROFESSOR-FRANK-FUREDI-contempt-unelected-buffoons-House-Lords.html

Ah, we completely disagree on this one GSM as its children. You can welcome people to a place even if some will not be in the UK for long, but given the acceptance rate of incomers as asylum seekers, most will stay.

C'mon, its just pure "mean".

The children may not be able to read welcome signs Wyllow. And as I have already said, it’s not an airport. These people may be deported so welcome signs are highly inappropriate.

Much of what you describe they do in order to come to the UK rather than stay in France or another European country MOnica.

Well if it were because it was "inappropriate" why not take up the offer from artists to re-do?

And Jenrick also removed the "Welcome" signs in different languages. That is nothing to do with age appropriate but making a little extra effort for children

Greta

Just listening to Robert Jenrick now on radio 4. The reason the mural was removed was that it was not 'age appropriate'. So obviously it had to go...
I think ministers are getting rather desperate; any excuse will do.

It’s not true anyway. The centre it was in is used for families with children as well as lone travellers under the age of 18. Why do politicians keep lying when they must know there’s Governmental documentary evidence freely available that contradicts what they say? The only conclusion I can draw is that they assume the public are stupid.

Just listening to Robert Jenrick now on radio 4. The reason the mural was removed was that it was not 'age appropriate'. So obviously it had to go...
I think ministers are getting rather desperate; any excuse will do.

There is a system to return Albanian citizens back home pdq. Albania, is however a European country, and for most their journey here is relatively easy.

Many of those in the boats come from conflict zones lke Afghanistan and Syria, or desperately poor parts of Africa, like Gambia and other west African countries, and the people coming on those routes, do suffer and take enormous risks on their journey.

Just consider how bad things would need to be for you to sell everything you possess, to undertake a journey of thousands of miles through hostile territory, in the hands and control of criminals, to whom your life is valueless, where you may need to walk hundreds of miles, be locked in a lorry, go hungry and, male or female, face rape and other violence to get to what you see as a safe and rich country, where you will still live in poverty.

That is not a plea to let these migrants in, but think about what they have undergone and why before treating them with contempt.

I think the contrary has proved to be the case with many economic migrants from Albania,

All immigrants should be assumed to be assylum seekers until shown otherwise. This is not to deny that some immigrants are economic immigrants.

Ironically, it could be argued that the endurance, and determination of those coming as economic immigrants, fleeing countries where only unemployment and abject poverty awaits them shows they have just the qualitites we need for successful immigrants who can, and want, to contribute to the growth of the UK economy.

An answer to pPrimrose and Choughdancer
Gambian Bumsters, Smooth Operators Preying on Elderly White Women
4 months agoAdd Commentby Wairimu Teresa.
Sorry can't copy the Web site. From Africa, but it is seeafrica today. Although a channel 4 documentary put all the onus on the elderly white woman. Of course.

Primrose53

Germanshepherdsmum

So they are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

Yes they are! I hear that they prowl the beaches out there pestering female holidaymakers and telling them they love them at first sight even though they are old enough to be their grandmas. They think they have hit the jackpot if they agree to marry them an get them to the UK.

What, the young children?

Choughdancer. I assumed that Primrose53 was joking. You've got me wondering now.

Chocolatelovinggran

Yes as my post before, which Freya interpreted as a criticism of staff, was trying to highlight, the story seems a little shaky. However overwhelmed the staff might be, I am sure that they would have been able to notice(?) and deal with any attempts to deface the walls . I am defending their professionalism and asking again if this account is accurate in every detail.

No I was not criticising the staff at all. They work in hard , sometimes distressing circumstances.what I was saying you cannot follow children around all the time. Or are these kids under lock and key. I remember when I had two little ones, up in their bed room playing. When I went to check, my makeup had been found,in my room, Lord what a mess.Kids will make mischief when they can,if so inclined.

NanaDana

The original post is not about the rights or wrongs of asylum seekers coming to the UK. Neither does it reference how they get here via some imagined, comfortable Cook's Tour type journey through so-called "safe" European countries where they could have simply chosen to break their excursion, rather than dare to break into "fortress Britain". It's not about people smugglers either. It is purely and simply about how those vulnerable children should be treated once they are here and in our care. The idea that they somehow deserve cruel treatment in order to demonstrate that they are unwelcome is a vile, heartless concept. Should they also be fed on bread and water and forced into hard labour? That would really get Jenrik's message across wouldn't it? The total lack of humanity and compassion evident in attempts to justify this shameful episode is truly loathsome. As has so accurately been emphasised before, the top and bottom of the issue is the shameful Home Office decision to paint over murals, painted by caring volunteers and designed to cheer up a centre, the purpose of which is to receive unaccompanied child asylum seekers. It was an act motivated simply by the milk of human kindness, and the fact that some here are now determined to turn that milk sour is beyond my understanding. The focus should remain on the core issue.. which is a move which has no other purpose than to make children suffer. Everything else is just an attempt to make irrelevant, diversionary noise. Indefensible and truly shameful.

Well said NanaDana.

And Primrose53: I hear that they prowl the beaches out there pestering female holidaymakers and telling them they love them at first sight even though they are old enough to be their grandmas. They think they have hit the jackpot if they agree to marry them an get them to the UK.
Do you have ANY proof of this and the numbers doing this? 'I hear' (from whom?) and 'they' (who?) isn't enough.

Germanshepherdsmum

So they are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

Yes they are! I hear that they prowl the beaches out there pestering female holidaymakers and telling them they love them at first sight even though they are old enough to be their grandmas. They think they have hit the jackpot if they agree to marry them an get them to the UK.

NanaDana you are right of course.
The story is the cruel mindset here.

As you will know lots of us are mortified by the callous demand to be as unwelcoming as possible - to children of all people.

I suppose when "justifications" keep popping up about this (for what I see as despicable actions) some of us are drawn in to challenging the things that are just not true.

Apologies Dana

As an afterthought, it's not about whether or not they are asylum seekers or economic migrants either... although how a child can be an economic migrant is beyond me. The smoke and mirrors about how old they actually are is also irrelevant. It may be stretching it to describe some of them as children, but would the volunteers really choose to paint Micky Mouse murals for youths? There are undoubtedly young, traumatised children there, and they are being victimised, so in a place where they should feel safe and unthreatened, this callous move reminds that the hurt goes on. If you support that, your world is not a place I would choose to inhabit.

The original post is not about the rights or wrongs of asylum seekers coming to the UK. Neither does it reference how they get here via some imagined, comfortable Cook's Tour type journey through so-called "safe" European countries where they could have simply chosen to break their excursion, rather than dare to break into "fortress Britain". It's not about people smugglers either. It is purely and simply about how those vulnerable children should be treated once they are here and in our care. The idea that they somehow deserve cruel treatment in order to demonstrate that they are unwelcome is a vile, heartless concept. Should they also be fed on bread and water and forced into hard labour? That would really get Jenrik's message across wouldn't it? The total lack of humanity and compassion evident in attempts to justify this shameful episode is truly loathsome. As has so accurately been emphasised before, the top and bottom of the issue is the shameful Home Office decision to paint over murals, painted by caring volunteers and designed to cheer up a centre, the purpose of which is to receive unaccompanied child asylum seekers. It was an act motivated simply by the milk of human kindness, and the fact that some here are now determined to turn that milk sour is beyond my understanding. The focus should remain on the core issue.. which is a move which has no other purpose than to make children suffer. Everything else is just an attempt to make irrelevant, diversionary noise. Indefensible and truly shameful.

You may be interested, re Gambia, 2,544 people fled Gambia in 2022 and applied for assylum elsewhere in the world.

The UK had 79 of those applications from Gambian asylum seekers in 2022.
We accepted that15 were entitled to stay as refugees,
We rejected 12.
Technically that means we had a 55.6 % acceptance rate.

In addition to this we undertook some reviews of previous decisions regarding Gambian citizens:
7 requested a review
5 were accepted
5 were rejected.

The numbers seem slightly odd as they refer to a single year. Applications are often made and then processed in different years.

You may be interested to know that the US abd Canada have similar acceptance rates.

Presumably, then Germanshepherdsmum we decide that under half are either economic migrants or just aren't entitled to stay for some reason or another.

This is UNHCR data. Hope it helps.

So they are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

Because the tourists have a lovely time but the tourist industry cannot begin to employ even a fraction of the number of young men and women in the country and youth unemployment runs at around 40%. Many jobs effectively are unpaid. Young men, out of work, with no chance of finding any start looking elsewhere to find work.

They will not find it in Africa, other African countries have the same problems Gambia has. 60% of the population in Africa is under 30.

Read this article mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/113516/1/MPRA_paper_113516.pdf . It goes along way to explain why these unemployed young men with no opportunities of any work in their home countries are prepared to take all the risks that the journey to the UK entails. Gambia was part of the commonwealth and most of these young men have some knowledge of English, so they want to go to a country where they have some grasp of he language.