General Chat

Hi PollyPoppet , terribly sad story I hope someone will be able to help with information for you .

Caththecat, I know very little myself on this topic, but it seems to me that though the government of the day can't perhaps be held accountable for the treatment received by the children as 'individuals' placed in different homes etc ( though personally I think it should be as they had a duty of care to those children which they did not fulfill once they had left this country) , they certainly CAN be held accountable for misinforming those children and their parents, and for not making some effort much much sooner to rectify that situation?

CtCat,

no of course no gov involved knew that any abuse would ever take place,,,,they were sent and accepted as part new stock for which a better life would be provided,,once there in some of these countires is where they were sadly let down.....wether our gov or that countires gov knew what was happening is another matter......,,,,,some were placed in orphanages on arrival and spent their life in childrens homes.....remember back then the child had no voice.!!!

The cost to keep a child here UK in* a home* was abt £5 per day,,,in Australia it was 10shillings!!!so sening them was less of a burden on gov expenses.!!

On the other hand lots went to loving homes ,had great lives.hundreds were placed into the wrong hands.

Lies and decite to both parents and children was paramount.also many parents were told their child would be returned after a couple of years.

thanks rose
have just talked to my mum about it and the woman my dad was boarded to got 5 shillings per child not sure if it was a for day or a weeks board

PollyPoppet I would think it was 5 shillings a week given the date, my mum started work around 1935 and earned 9 shillings a week.

your probaly right rose at it being five shillings a week would have been a lot of money in 1935 she boarded other children over a period of time as well as my dad and his brother

I understand the Austrailan prime minister has made an apology on behalf of the Parliamnet and the Australian people, to the "forgoten children" who were sent to Australia and, who were often neglected or abused in institutions and used as cheap labour on many Australian farmsteads.........Mmmmm, did he ask for forgiveness, because an apology without forgiveness is nothing in my eyes.

I think i remember reading about a similar apology made by the Australian government, to say they were "SORRY" for the terrible wrongs committed to the Aboriginal children.

So it seems Gordon Brown is also going to make an apology for Britons part in this disgraceful episode, I wonder if he will beg for forgiveness as well.

In my eyes, an apology is an admission that a wrong has been done and is also an appeal to the injured party to forgive for what was done to them.
Its one thing to say "We're sorry" but without asking for and receiving forgiveness I feel is worthless.

this subject really interests me but I am at a loss to know how to progress (other than appoint a researcher in Canada) with information that might be available on the Canadian Records but as yet is unavailable on the internet.

Perhaps Janey might advise me, if she's still around.
It would be appreciated.

Jac xxx

forgot to say that relations in Canada, who are direct descendents of Home Children have shown absolutely no interest whatsoever in their forefathers - so drawn a blank there.

The first act of the newly elected Australian Labor Party when parliament met following the 2007 election was an apology to the Aboriginal people of Australia, part of the stolen generations. The previous Liberal (conservative) government refused to apologise, for two reasons.
1. They did not think that they - the then federal government - were responsible for policies of previous colonial, state and federal governments, and
2. They thought that an apology would leave them open to claims for compensation.
On the surface, both of these seem reasonable, but many if not most Australians saw them as typical of a mean spirited government.

Support for an apology to the deportees from the U.K. is more muted.
I do agree with Rambling Rose's comments to Caththecat at 11.37 that the British, Canadian and Australian governments were not directly involved in the abuse, or even knew about it. Nevertheless, and apology and a plea for forgiveness are appropriate.
In Australia (and probably in Canada) these were state/provincial government responsibilities. Government departments failed in their duty of care, and continue to do so to this day, as evidenced by certain high profile cases recently concluded in our courts.

I wonder how we treat youngsters who arrive in the UK unaccompanied these days?

I don't know that many do Dermot?

Children who arrive in the UK alone are currently put in refugee detention centres, existing children's homes or short term foster care if they are lucky.

Since the year 2000 over 15,000 unaccompanied children have entered the UK seeking asylum. On arrival these children have no identification, information, documentation or guardians.

Thanks for adding that Janet, staggering amount, I had not thought there would be so many .

Bear in mind Rose, that in many of the countries they are coming from, they are taken from their families and trained to fight from as young as 8.

Just reading this,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1067569/Child-refugees-young-abandoned-UK-airports-startling-figures-reveal.html

it was just that I hadn't thought of unaccompanied children , not young ones anyway, just in terms of them actually being 'allowed' to travel .

One does hope Barnardo's has got better at this:

http://www.barnardos.org.uk/barnardo_s_response_to_uasc_consultation_alison_webster_0705.pdf

They're involved in the care of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in the UK.


I believe the those most likely to arrive in the UK to escape the fate of child soldiers are African and their parents fear they will be kidnapped by one of the sides in the many internal conflicts there.

Saw that Daily Mail article. I tend to prefer less hysterical sources. ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7220014.stm

Unaccompanied child asylum seekers who are denied the right to stay in the UK are to be deported before they reach 18, the government has announced.

Currently, the Border and Immigration Agency waits until the young person turns 18 before beginning proceedings.

... Immigration minister Liam Byrne said the current policy was a "green light" to organised gangs of child traffickers who knew children would not be sent home once they were in the country.

But Donna Covey, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: "The government should not try to force any child to return against their wishes where their safety and welfare cannot be guaranteed.

"These are not children who come here seeking a better life, with their families waiting for them in peaceful homes. Many of them are children from war zones."

Sir Al Aynsley-Green, Children's Commissioner for England, said he welcomed the government's efforts to tackle the problem, but he remained concerned about plans to withdraw support from unaccompanied children, especially those from "conflict-affected countries".

"If they feel unsupported in the UK, these children could disappear from a local authority's care well before their 18th birthday. This puts them at serious risk of harm..."



They are children, after all.

Interesting to see the considerations about trafficking. People who will exploit children will have no hesitation to exploit compassionate child refugee policies.

Happens in Canada too.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GlobalVoices/article/587381


When seven-year-old Sasha spoke to her mother on the phone, she begged to go home.

Tears ran down the girl's cheeks as her mother explained. But, Sasha (not her real name) could not understand.

She had arrived in Canada from Angola with her two teenage sisters as refugees. It had cost almost $10,000 to arrange visas and the smuggler. The mother couldn't afford passage for herself.

The mother knew the girls would fare better in Canada. So, she sent the girls alone.

But, Sasha believed she had been abandoned.

... Many children travel with smugglers who are either ill-informed or fear arrest. They tell the kids to say the smuggler is a relative or otherwise risk deportation. Then, the smuggler either abandons the child or drops them off at a shelter.

Sasha couldn't grasp the danger posed in Angola. ...

There's nothing wrong about the UK apologising about things past - and I don't mean any disrespect to the "forgotten children"

Shame that our country hasn't put it's own house in order, though.

Do you know that at present only about 5 per cent of unaccompanied minors arriving at our (caring) shores have their asylum claims upheld each year.
These are unaccompanied children.

Which means that 95% of unaccompanied children don't. These are children, many of whom will have travelled for miles to escape horrific incidents in their home lands.

By all means, let's apologise for the past. In a few years we'll have another past to apologise for.

Sue x

95% are sent back?????

If they have no documentation/identification where do they send them back to?