I Thought It Was Only The Children Who Were At Risk, But It Now Seems That It Is Also The Women, Shall We Then Take Them In As Well?

anotheoldgit | 10:40 Sun 12th Feb 2017 | News

72 Answers

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/dunkirk-child-refugees-risk-sexual-violence

Alec Baldwin's Trump Act Fools Newspaper

Labour V Trade Unions

Answers

61 to 72 of 72

First Previous 1 2 3 4

sp1814

Best Answer

I've not heard an explanation as to why the refugees cannot be settled in France. Also, if the women (as well as the children) are in danger from traffickers - the full force of the French judicial system should be brought down on the traffickers. At this point, it's not the responsibility of the UK.

13:39 Sun 12th Feb 2017

Go To Best Answer

Islay

AOG your last response to me is that supposed to be an insult?
JD good because to be quite honest neither could I!

anotheoldgit

Question Author

Islay

/// AOG your last response to me is that supposed to be an insult? ///

Don't ask me, you are the expert at insults, was that one of yours that was removed?

Jackdaw33

No, AOG, it was one of mine, wherein I intimated that because of my thick skin I was impervious to snide remarks.

Islay

I have no idea

hereIam

Why the hell is it always us that has to take EVERYBODY in, children or not, they will grow up and breed and then there will be far more than 350 - how much more can our resources take ??

Old_Geezer

I hope folk aren't suggesting that young men aren't at risk. I believe that group are most likely to be a victim of attack. And the older guys can't be expected to fight well enough to fend off gangs. I think they should be prioritized, unless you are happy for them to endure violence.

Zacs-Master

Good point OG. But don't you dare suggest we rescue them!

hereIam

I don't see why we should rescue any of them - not OUR problem.

anotheoldgit

Question Author

hereIam

Good point about them growing up, and judging by the age of these 'children' that won't be too long.

They will then need housing and also jobs.

I say this to those who want us to take them in, "are you yourselves prepared to foster any, finance them and continue to be responsible for them"?

ummmm

Why do people keep suggesting such utter nonsense? It's a load of bull. There's hardly anyone who would open their home to strangers but that doesn't mean they can't sympathise with their plight.

anotheoldgit

Question Author

ummmm

I would think that most of us sympathise with their plight, but that doesn't mean that we should be made responsible for them.

There are many of our own that we should sympathise over, so perhaps we should solve their problems first?

ummmm

Yes, I agree, but the 'Are you prepared to take them in' argument is nonsense.

61 to 72 of 72

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?