A B-BBC reader write;

“It is quite widely known that ‘child asylum seekers’ are a scandal, with many young adults claiming to be minors for all the benefits and care that being  ‘child’ reufgee brings, including the chance to be supported at school for a couple of years , improving your English and gaining some qualifications before havign to support yourself in Britain.

Chris Warburton standing in for Victoria Derbyshire was interviewing two such people this morning, who came here, supposedly as ‘child asylum seekers’.

The female from Afghanistan claimed that she had left the country with her uncle and had no idea where she was going, only that she was ‘leaving the country’. Of course Warburton laps up every word, apparently with no inclination yto question the more outrageaous claims of these people.

It seems common sense that since her uncle would have had to pay a large sum of money to the traffickers to take them half way across the world to Britain, he would have insisted on being reassured that their final destination would be Britain, and that they wouldn’t be dumped across the border in Kazakhstan or even Turkey. Greece, or France! Why are these questions never asked?

One cannot help but feel the BBC are so in cahoots with these interviewees, they probably pre advise them and stage the sob stories designed to convince hand wriinging Brits of the need to be eeven more genrous towards these colonisers.”

Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to CHILD ASYLUM

  1. Pah says:

    And here’s another one (sort of) from the Daily Hate. This time a Latvian, or is she Polish?

    Now if I were a Housing Officer for Boston Council I’d be asking if all 10 kids are actually hers and if not, why are they in the house?

    And people wonder where all the cash has gone …


    • Wayne X says:

      “Where has all the cash gone?” This is exactly what the Daily Mail is pointing out, or has that point passed you by?
      The article is also headlining that she is Latvian. So that was a miss too then?
      Also there is a hint of racism in that comment, “is she a Latvian, or is she Polish?” Does it matter?
      And it seems you would throw ten children on to the street if they are not hers. What a caring individual you are.
      You show more of your character in that little post than perhaps you realise. Thank god you are not the housing officer for Boston. No matter where they are from or that they should not have come here, the fact is they are here and all children in this country should be treated with human kindness.

      It might be best if, after an alcoholic lunch, to have a lie down rather than try to be clever on here.


      • Pah says:

        Ha, what crocodile tears you weep for them.

        Point one was not missed – it’s called re-iteration but then maybe that’s too big a concept for a ignorant piss puddle like you.

        As to her nationality – read the comments or look at the pictures (so much easier than reading eh?). Her surname is Polish and the so is the writing on the wall in the photo graph. Does it matter? Hell yes it does! She openly admits that she came here from abroad and is claiming benefits not just for her but for 10 children. Why the fuck should we stump up cash for foriegners when we have our own to feed? Do you let your kids go hungry so that next doors can eat?

        Secondly, my concern for the chidren was the possiblity that they were being exploited. She arrived with 3 and now has 10. Where did they all come from? Are they all hers? Exactly the sort of questions anyone who cares about child welfare would ask. Pity you are so up your own pious arse you can’t see the welfare angle. Then that’s you lot all together isn’t it? Politics first people second.

        As to how I spend my lunchtime that is my own affair, but as I’m tea-total your careless slander is far from the mark – like the rest of your post.


        • Pah says:

          Libel not slander. But as you were probably muttering away to your self as you typed then it still applies!


        • ROBERT BROWN says:

          Well done Pah, i think you have seen Wayne X off nicely, who is obviously not of this dimension, maybe from Planet Leftard.


      • RCE says:

        But who is going to pay for this human kindness?

        It costs money, you know (judging by your emotionally incontinent musings above – which, as ever from your sort, completely ignores the point that Pah is making – I suspect you don’t actually know this at all).


      • Aerfen says:

        “And it seems you would throw ten children on to the street if they are not hers. ”

        How about their mother could return them to their homes in Latvia?


        • Earls Court says:

          Why not deport the mother back to Latvia and sell her children off to laboratorys for medical experiments.


          • Mat says:

            Oh now there is a man with a final solution ? bit extreme for most but if that’s what you think Earl then well free speech and all but still sick !


          • RCE says:

            Continuing the theme of eugenics that has always been part of Socialism?


    • uncle bup says:

      It’s nice that dopy dez the dimwit droid has taught his pet monkey, pah, to post on the forum.

      Well nice for dez and his pet monkey.

      The benefits to us are not quite so clear cut.


      • Pah says:

        Care to explain how my post has anything to do with Dez or are you still sore I took the piss last time you failed a reading comprehension?


        • Demon says:

          Are people confusing Jah with Pah? Is it just me that is easily confused? (Until I read the contents of their posts, of course.)


          • Pah says:

            What I don’t get is why you’d kick JAH (or Dez for that matter) without reading the post first. It’s always a good idea to find out what the enemy think and the arguments they use. Makes them easier to counter.

            They may even come to see the light one day …


            • Demon says:

              I agree. I always do read the posts but sometimes the points made are far from clear, so one has to remember who it is writing it to work out the context. Jah can be very muddled.


  2. Umbongo says:

    Er and why Britain anyway? AFAIAA asylum seeking implies a desperation to leave a particular country, not to get to a particular country. So , to a genuine asylum seeker “Kazakhstan or even Turkey. Greece, or France” should be acceptable and, in the cases of an Afghani refugee, Kazakhstan or Turkey, should be even more acceptable because they’re easier to get to. As DV implies, where the BBC agenda is applied, the obvious questions are rarely, if ever, posed. But, there again, why expect anything different? This is, after all, the BBC demonstrating yet again its world standard bias and incompetence.


  3. London Calling says:

    Not just asylum – a fraudulent word if ever to describe economic migration – we see children from Africa routinely sent to “stay” with an “aunt” in England, and hey presto its £6k a year of free schooling, and free health care, a drain on our crumbling overstretched infrastructure. The Liberal extremists at the bBC always use a smarmy phrase like “in search of a better life” – they forget to add: better for them, worse for us.

    Ask anyone working in the health service about the African mothers who tip up with a disabled child but seem a bit vague when asked the child’s date of birth.


    • Aerfen says:

      And these foster parents, relatives or not, are paid to ‘look after’ the child who the biological parents see as both having a ‘better life’ and the potential to send back remittances and provide an anchor for future members of the family in Britain.

      It’s not just Third Worlders either. I recall a young man on the ‘student room’ forum, a Russian who was apparently living with his ‘sister’ in London while he went to a British school doing GCSEs. His father, he openly stated, was paying his ‘sister’ (?) for his keep, and he seemed to have a very cold relationship with this woman, and not to be at all welcome in her home. The young man seemed very arrogant and unusually focussed for a ‘sixteen year old’ too and was determined to wangle himself into a good school for his sixth form studies. There again if you’re actually say, twenty, studying GCSEs with sixteen year olds, you cannot help but feel aloof and somewhat above them all.


  4. RCE says:

    LOL. Saleem was the hardest lad in our school when he was in the third year. The whole, bearded six foot of him.

    13 years old my arse.

    Obviously, Dez will rule out this personal experience as ‘pathetic’, ‘BS’ &c.


    • Chop says:

      Yup, there was one exactly the same in my year at school…I forget his name, but, as was normal in those days (the early 80’s) we all had to have a communal shower after gym/football…whatever, he had a beard and was hung like a hairy donkey….no wonder Mr Hollins was so keen on him…11?….I don’t fecking think so.


  5. richard says:

    Where’d the money come from in the first place.


  6. Ian Hills says:

    Guilt-mongering is a favourite tactic of the state, its broadcaster, its church and its schools, and far more effective than violent repression.

    It’s not cruel to put these children in a walled-off compound prior to shipping them out to a third-world orphanage, funded by foreign aid.

    Thee they can learn a trade and grow their own food. An idyllic childhood, and much cheaper than keeping them in Britain.

    I don’t think we’d get so many child refugees after the scheme kicked in, either.


  7. Aerfen says:

    Some countries, Poland included (oh the irony) refuse to even accept unacompanied ‘child’ refugees, so this is something CLEARLY not mandatory due to the ECHR. Why are we still accepting them is the question? Very few parents indeed would send an unaccompanied under eighteen across continents at the mercy of traffickers however grim conditons are in their country. The majority of them simply cannot be so young as they claim, a view which is supported by numerous observations of people who have worked with these ‘children’ and backed up by teachers who have seen young adults admitted to British schools, giving them incidentally access to much younger girls, to whose naive understanding their ‘maturity’ can seem attractive. Consider this foolish innocent and her equally stupid gullible mother:


  8. Aerfen says:

    Hmmm. Wonder if this is the same Mohammed Pardesi.
    If so seems he has plenty of family here after all.


  9. chrisH says:

    I can imagine the dopes at customs these days-well, their management certainly-listening to Les Cranes “Desiderata” and waving even the demented serial mothers in law of Choudhury and the like through….for isn`t each burka-clad crone with a bunion also a “child of the universe”…that word “child” see…so don`t be a racist eh?
    Maybe this is why our prisons are fast turning into approved schools….ah, bless!