The Migrant Children in Europe - what to do about them?

[windysmithy]

so the BBC runs a story on a legal bid of some kids from the jungle older than 14 and then show a picture of a kid probably no older than 5 - is this bad journalism? blatant & crude manipulatiion ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38455222

More a case of poor picture editing - the photo in question was taken in the refugee camp in Dunkirk, where most of the residents have escaped from Kurdistan, although there are a few Afghanis there.

Nearly all the children are Kurdish though.

This camp has not yet been dismantled; there were between 1000 and 2000 people there last week. It has the support of the local Mairie, although not the state government. The conditions here are vastly better than the last and largest of the many Jungle camps in Calais over the years.

A misleading photograph, perhaps to muddy the waters further, perhaps due to ignorance on the part of the editors.

[mercalia]

seems like we wont be taking any more child migrants under the Dubs Amendment. We have taken just 350 not the 3000 or so envisaged by Dubs. He aint too pleased but like all the comfortable middle classes lives in a world of his own, unaffected by realities but only motivated by his extravagant and self indulgent moral sense?

this excerpt seems to indicate the problem --

"In Wednesday's statement, Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill said 200 had already arrived and a further 150 children would follow before the end of March, filling the available places offered by local authorities. "

seems like its a matter of places available? I seem to remember reading that there is an extreme shortage of suitable places? and some councils just dont have the money, as not all the costs are picked up by the govt, costs have to include sending them to uni...

all very sad but there it is, our country not paved with gold - if it was then we could pull up a few pavement stones and use them to pay for it all. I hear our national debt is £1tn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38912428



"Dubs lists his main home as a cottage in the Lake District in Cumbria, which enabled him to claim over £26,000 of overnight subsistence expenses in 2007/2008, although he has lived in Notting Hill, west London, since 1964. He argued in justification in May 2009 that Lords regard the overnight allowance as a payment in lieu of salary. "We are the only legislators in the world that don’t get paid," he said. "The overnight thing is quite generous because it compensates for not having a salary. In practice that’s how it works."

nice for some? Come over Donald Trump and clean out OUR swamp?

[pete75]

Dubs Law.

Dubs???

[mercalia]

Dubs Law.

Dubs???

my spelling seems to be going to pot these days hope it not old age setting in so used that rather than Amendment

[mercalia]

Dubs Law.

Dubs???

my spelling seems to be going to pot these days hope it not old age setting in so used that rather than Amendment

[roubaixtuesday]

Dr Seuss' views on the matter.



1941 vintage I believe.

Lessons of history right down to the exact words of the propaganda.

[mercalia]

Dr Seuss' views on the matter.



1941 vintage I believe.

Lessons of history right down to the exact words of the propaganda.

they do matter. But until the Yvette Coopers of this world give up owning 2nd homes and are prepared to live on the national average income I wont for one listen to her insulated viewpoint and circumstances, : she is some one quite prepared to spend tax payers limited resources when our own country is in such need, at no cost to her self, very easy to be moral under those circumtances? Now let her become Mother Yvette ( aka Teresa ). She aint such a paragon of virtue as this old story indicates -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html

It now seems the French have asked the UK to wind up the scheme as they think it just attracts more to try it ( and they will end up with picking up the pieces)

reading about all the protests reminds me what is is bad about our Parliament. Self proclaimed moralists and protectors of the countries virtue

[Vorpal]

they do matter. But until the Yvette Coopers of this world give up owning 2nd homes and are prepared to live on the national average income I wont for one listen to her insulated viewpoint and circumstances, : she is some one quite prepared to spend tax payers limited resources when our own country is in such need, at no cost to her self, very easy to be moral under those circumtances? Now let her become Mother Yvette ( aka Teresa ). She aint such a paragon of virtue as this old story indicates -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html

It now seems the French have asked the UK to wind up the scheme as they think it just attracts more to try it ( and they will end up with picking up the pieces)

reading about all the protests reminds me what is is bad about our Parliament. Self proclaimed moralists and protectors of the countries virtue

So if Yvette Coopoer and Ed Balls are supposed to give up their second home, where are they going to stay when they are doing their jobs? In either London, or Castleford? A hotel? Is that going to be cheaper for the tax payers? And should taxpayers also pay for someone to look after their children since they no longer have a home in London?

There are good reasons for the rules that allow MPs to have second homes, and frankly the rate of pay for back benchers is poor enough that they could never afford on their own to have a place to stay in London, so it seems entirely fair to me that they be compensated in this way.

p.s. I'm no fan of Ed Balls, but were investigated for the second home flips, and exonerated; they weren't even claiming all of the mortgage that they were eligible to claim

[roubaixtuesday]

they do matter

Of course. That's why you spent three words on them, and then two paragraphs on other things that don't matter.

[kwackers]

Of course. That's why you spent three words on them, and then two paragraphs on other things that don't matter.

Sometimes it's hard to justify what you think. Two paragraphs is probably about right...

[[XAP]Bob]

they do matter. But until the Yvette Coopers of this world give up owning 2nd homes and are prepared to live on the national average income I wont for one listen to her insulated viewpoint and circumstances, : she is some one quite prepared to spend tax payers limited resources when our own country is in such need, at no cost to her self, very easy to be moral under those circumtances? Now let her become Mother Yvette ( aka Teresa ). She aint such a paragon of virtue as this old story indicates -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html

It now seems the French have asked the UK to wind up the scheme as they think it just attracts more to try it ( and they will end up with picking up the pieces)

reading about all the protests reminds me what is is bad about our Parliament. Self proclaimed moralists and protectors of the countries virtue

So if Yvette Coopoer and Ed Balls are supposed to give up their second home, where are they going to stay when they are doing their jobs? In either London, or Castleford? A hotel? Is that going to be cheaper for the tax payers? And should taxpayers also pay for someone to look after their children since they no longer have a home in London?

There are good reasons for the rules that allow MPs to have second homes, and frankly the rate of pay for back benchers is poor enough that they could never afford on their own to have a place to stay in London, so it seems entirely fair to me that they be compensated in this way.

p.s. I'm no fan of Ed Balls, but were investigated for the second home flips, and exonerated; they weren't even claiming all of the mortgage that they were eligible to claim

That's easy - Government should buy/build a block of flats not too far (time wise) from the seat of government, and as an MP you get a maintained flat in London.

This need not apply to those who already live in a reasonable commuting range of course (can be determined by constituency)

These flats should then have the same network access as is available in the halls of Westminster (i.e. better than a home connection in terms of doing their job) as well as an insecure network for things like netflix etc...

You don't need to keep doing up second homes - you just maintain a bunch of flats.

[mercalia]

they do matter. But until the Yvette Coopers of this world give up owning 2nd homes and are prepared to live on the national average income I wont for one listen to her insulated viewpoint and circumstances, : she is some one quite prepared to spend tax payers limited resources when our own country is in such need, at no cost to her self, very easy to be moral under those circumtances? Now let her become Mother Yvette ( aka Teresa ). She aint such a paragon of virtue as this old story indicates -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html

It now seems the French have asked the UK to wind up the scheme as they think it just attracts more to try it ( and they will end up with picking up the pieces)

reading about all the protests reminds me what is is bad about our Parliament. Self proclaimed moralists and protectors of the countries virtue

So if Yvette Coopoer and Ed Balls are supposed to give up their second home, where are they going to stay when they are doing their jobs? In either London, or Castleford? A hotel? Is that going to be cheaper for the tax payers? And should taxpayers also pay for someone to look after their children since they no longer have a home in London?

There are good reasons for the rules that allow MPs to have second homes, and frankly the rate of pay for back benchers is poor enough that they could never afford on their own to have a place to stay in London, so it seems entirely fair to me that they be compensated in this way.

p.s. I'm no fan of Ed Balls, but were investigated for the second home flips, and exonerated; they weren't even claiming all of the mortgage that they were eligible to claim

That's easy - Government should buy/build a block of flats not too far (time wise) from the seat of government, and as an MP you get a maintained flat in London.

This need not apply to those who already live in a reasonable commuting range of course (can be determined by constituency)

These flats should then have the same network access as is available in the halls of Westminster (i.e. better than a home connection in terms of doing their job) as well as an insecure network for things like netflix etc...

You don't need to keep doing up second homes - you just maintain a bunch of flats.

They dont even need to be flats? what about the uni campus dorms idea that we have had for donkies years? much cheaper and could be rented out in the recesses for holiday makers? Vorpals type of argument is always trotted out to justify the comfort and advantages of the middle classes ie need? when its really excessive beyond what they need. The rules & arrangments always justify what the middle class elite wants rather than needs and confusess the two? Fankly it would do them good to have to live like that when in London, would remind them of how many have to live ( MPS may mouth their empathy but most have lost any long time ago )

And any way Vorpals argument dont apply to the Dubs man who has a second home in Cumbria but has lived in London Battersea I think it is since the 60's?

I see today that Bragg has put in his 2p worth saying that The UK has a duty to give sanctuary to more unaccompanied child refugees from across Europe. I think the duty is for individuals not countries - it is a good ruse for moralists to distance their own respnsibility and therefore personal cost to make the country responsible? Let him sell his mansion and and sponsor a child ( or even a uk child) live in a more modest abode? Of course the Vorpal argument would be he needs a mansion so he dont disturb his neighbours with his loud music practiceing

[AlaninWales]

Except that Dubs' is only one programme for taking refugee children into UK and was specifically aimed at taking those already in a safe country (France). UK continues to take in refugees directly from impacted zones (which means not preferentially taking those whose fammily can afford to pay traffickers and so not encouraging human trafficking).

[Vorpal]

That's easy - Government should buy/build a block of flats not too far (time wise) from the seat of government, and as an MP you get a maintained flat in London.

This need not apply to those who already live in a reasonable commuting range of course (can be determined by constituency)

These flats should then have the same network access as is available in the halls of Westminster (i.e. better than a home connection in terms of doing their job) as well as an insecure network for things like netflix etc...

You don't need to keep doing up second homes - you just maintain a bunch of flats.

And for those who have large families that travel with them? Or special needs such as disabled access? Or couples who both serve the government?

And where are these flats going to be? In a nice area around Westminster? Someplace where a studio flat is worth a million or two?

You are aware that the people who buy second homes, use hotels or pay rent on a flat only get to claim a maximum per year? It's £20610 for those who rent, and an additional £8850 for those who own a home. And because Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper cohabitate they only get to claim that once between them.

Honestly, you'd be hard pressed to rent a flat for £20610 per year anywhere near parliament.

Out of 650 MPs, how many are within reasonable commuting distance of London 70? 80? So let's suppose that conservatively, we need 550 flats and apartments within a reasonable commute. We are going to purchase a selection because some MPs will come alone, some will bring partners and some will bring families.

The government could pay accomodation expenses for a 100 years, maybe 200, and still not pay as much out as for London flats, bought today. That doesn't even cover the maintenance expenses. Or interest (because they won't pay cash for them, will they?) Is that what you want the government to do with taxpayer's money?

[Vorpal]

Of course none of this is necessary, you can just pay them crap and not give them anything, and then we will get exactly what we pay for...