Is our MP showing her true colours?

Home Forums Wrexham.com Forums Wrexham Forum Is our MP showing her true colours?

  • Author
    Posts
  • #179299

    barb
    Participant

    In 2016 the Home Office received around 9,800 applications for children seeking asylum in the UK. In the same year it decided around 580 cases where the age of a child was disputed (as they were thought to be over 18) and in 370 (61%) it was decided that the child seeking asylum was over 18.

    The percentage is the number found to be adults out of the challenged cases ie. 370 out of 580. Not the whole number of applications- 9,800. 370 out of 9,800 is 3%.

    #179300

    zinger
    Participant

    Were we not just discussing unaccompanied children? I can see the word ‘assessed’ which I assume rightly or wrongly to relate to refer to those children whose age was disputed.

    “Home Office data indicated that between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017 it had received 2,952 applications for asylum from unaccompanied children.

    “In the same period, it had raised 705 age disputes, roughly 1 in 4.

    “Of the 705, 618 had been resolved. In 216 (35%) of these 618 cases, the Local Authority assessed the claimant to be under 18, and in 402 (65%) cases they were assessed to be over 18 (an adult).”

    The Chief Inspector’s office confirmed to us that 65% refers only to assessed unaccompanied children. The Home Office figure for all assessed children found to be adults in 2016 (the last year for which we know the total number of children seeking asylum) is similar – 61%.

    It’s calculated by dividing the 402 cases where unaccompanied children were deemed to be over 18 by the 2,952 applications from unaccompanied children, giving 14%.”

    #179301

    barb
    Participant

    Okay but my original post was about reuniting families. And whatever the figures I cannot condone that not being a priority.

    #179467

    Llayby lilly
    Participant

    Barb….give our new MP a chance will you. She’s barely been in office a month and your attacking her like a rabid remainer, you’re not in partnership with Timmy are you??

    Also remember, she is probably not referring to people with disabilities such a wheel-chair users or those with mobility problems. If you don’t know, practically every alcoholic and chronic drug user – is in receipt of disability benefit and classified as disabled. This is a legacy from Labours Tony Blair years when he moved all those such people off unemployment benefit onto disability benefit and ‘hey presto’ Labour slashed the unemployment figures overnight from 3.5 million to around 2.5 million.

    So take a chill pill and let’s sit back and see what wonderful work she’s going to do for our area. It’s going to be fabulous…!

    Lilly

    #179468

    Llayby lilly
    Participant

    Just for information, when a person arrives in the UK and states that they are a child, incredibly it’s a social worker with absolutely no qualifications in this area who determines if that person is a child or not. Age is not determined by a paediatrician or a dentist – who would be the experts in this matter, but a duty social worker. Hence the horrid stories of men with full beards in schools with young children!

    Soft touch Britain. Come on Boris, Priti et al, get it sorted…!

    #179469

    barb
    Participant

    Lilly – a rabid dog? If you look back over this thread you will see that I have questioned her actions in a perfectly reasonable way, stating my reasons and backed by statistics where available. These are questions that Ms Atherton is not answering herself.
    If you put yourself in the position of representing your constituency then surely you have a responsibility to justify your actions.
    Wrexham has already welcomed asylum seekers and refugees to Wrexham and Wrexham has been a welcoming, safe place for them. This action by Ms Atherton goes against this ethos and is morally wrong. I am questioning whether she will continue to toe the party line or make her decisions based on the need of her constituents.

    #179478

    TimRegency
    Participant

    Barb….give our new MP a chance will you. She’s barely been in office a month and your attacking her like a rabid remainer, you’re not in partnership with Timmy are you??

    Nobody has to give your MP a chance if they don’t want to, especially an MP that picks on disabled people and vulnerable children.

    Also remember, she is probably not referring to people with disabilities such a wheel-chair users or those with mobility problems. If you don’t know, practically every alcoholic and chronic drug user – is in receipt of disability benefit and classified as disabled.

    She was referring to people with learning disabilities who had the cheek to need to live in supported housing:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51025706

    So that demolishes your Daily Mail theory.

    This is a legacy from Labours Tony Blair years when he moved all those such people off unemployment benefit onto disability benefit and ‘hey presto’ Labour slashed the unemployment figures overnight from 3.5 million to around 2.5 million.

    That was Thatcher. Tony Blair attempted to put right her misdeed.

    So take a chill pill and let’s sit back and see what wonderful work she’s going to do for our area. It’s going to be fabulous…!

    Lilly

    Let us know when there’s evidence to support this claim. At the moment, the evidence contradicts it.

    #179480

    zinger
    Participant

    What ever – all goes to prove that one size doesn’t fit all. Blanket acceptance of unaccompanied ‘children’ would be wrong as is giving alcoholics & drug users our hard earned income whichever government did it.

    #179481

    TimRegency
    Participant

    And the converse is true. Blanket refusals and condemnation is wrong too.

    Plenty of alcoholics and drug addicts are ex servicemen with horrific PTSD or survivors of sexual abuse or have pre-existing disabilities that have overwhelmed them. We don’t know what’s going on in their lives.

    #179549

    Llayby lilly
    Participant

    Well Timmy, there you go again choosing partisan political beliefs rather than the facts. I was a senior manager in employment services in Manchester between 1992 and 2004 and I can assure you that Labours policy was to move those poor souls addicted to drugs etc. off the unemployment list to permanent disability benefits. Hence the spiralling cost of the benefits system following his appointment to PM. This had nothing to do with Thatcher, who was no fan of by the way.

    As for evidence that things will get better… read this and weep…

    Secretary of State says Wrexham will now start to receive benefits from prosperity fund

    Looks like our new MP is off to a FLYING START at putting Wrexham front and centre….! Well done Sarah.

    Lilly

Content is user generated and is not moderated before posting. All content is viewed and used by you at your own risk and Wrexham.com does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information displayed. The views expressed on these Forums and social media are those of the individual contributors.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.