A coalition of more than a hundred refugee children’s organisations has said controversial plans to use AI to assess the age of young asylum seekers could lead to more children wrongly ending up in adult prisons or detention centres.
To be able to stick more claimed kiddies into adult centres. Thus, presumably, the complaint is that it might work?
Can someone please explain how there can be “more than a hundred refugee children’s organisations” in the UK?
Blair’s ‘third sector’ innit. His wraith-like stormtroopers.
And if you assume each one has 10 people working for it, that’s 1,000 refugee children agitators which in principle could achieve the same thing working for just one charity of 1,000.
But one organisation of 1,000 would achieve only part of the object of the exercise. Much better to split them up into scores of different organisations, because then you’re wrestling an octopus.
When the chair of one organization is arrested for child porn and trafficking (likely the third such one this week), they can close that one down and only lose 10 people (until those join the next one).
It does seem rather inefficient. If the coalition coalesced, it could have a board of governors each pulling down six figures. One hundred individual organizations will be led by one hundred committees, each committee member earning no more than an honorarium at best.
That’s not the point…
100 different organisations means the possibility for 100 lawsuits against the same little thing, making it seem as if there’s massive support for an issue, when in reality there isn’t…
And most of those orga’s are not in the Professional Grifter league… They’re ran by prodnoses and Activists who want to Virtue Signal…
Why merely be a donator/supporter of a Big One when you can be Secretary or even Chairman of your own little bit of Virtuousness…
That Lefty pecking order is *quite* real….
Like with Climate Alarmists, Environmental Protectionists, and Cultural Heritage clubs… The setup is pretty universal, all under the guise of “Local Engagement”.
And most of them shouldn’t have ever gotten official status to begin with….
I dare say that many of them are one-man-bands operating out of a back bedroom with a webcam and microphone, sort of like Spud Nation.
Part of the point is to have 100 chairs pulling down six figure salaries.
There’s good money to be had as an enemy of Western Civilisation…
Women running them. So, everyone wants to be in management.
Presumably most of the donations go to support the managers.
There are 47 Red Squirrel charities, all of them receiving tax payer cash (gift aid) and all of them failing to stop the decline of the red squirrel.
If you diverted that money to ten Red Squrrel charities run by Real Men, they’d be out there with shotgnus fixing the grey squirrel problem in less than a year, then moving on to the next thing.
In my town people keep wibbling about the Seagull Problem. I keep telling them the answer is: issue shotgun licenses.
I suspect the charities do not want to fix the problem. Why spoil a nice way of earning a living?
See also: all charities.
A friend of mine volunteered for a UK-based ‘charity’ in Hong Kong. She found that the Hong Kong arm did not generate a cent for the stated worthy causes, it just covered the cost of events for ladies who lunch and the salaries of staff.
Whatsherface Batmanejellybaby’s charity’s main objective was to pay her a six figure salary along with a driver and many other perks.
Me and my air rifle:
One in each county in England and a few in Wales and Scotland. Hertfordshire had a small charity devoted to Ukrainian refugees – my wife and I each did a few hours work for it when asked.
Follow the example of muhammad – check if they’ve got pubes and if they have they are adults.
Of course, he then went on to slaughter any who were found to be adults, personally i’d be happy with deportation.
I think deportation is fine for the illegals. Besides, we need all the gallows for the leaders of these “refugee children organisations’.
For the first time offenders, sure. For repeats? Not so fast.
Why do we even HAVE more than ‘a hundred refugee children’s organisations’?
Oh, right, to employ all the useless arts degree graduates, of course….
Could.
In the language of reality vs activism, could means won’t.
I wonder. Start a refugee children organisation. Appeal for funding. Receive funding. Start a refugee children organisation…
They’re not refugees yet – that determination is made on the outcome of the asylum application. Ergo, the refugee charities should butt out.
I might have more sympathy for them if’refugee charities ‘ hadn’t managed to get known accurate assessment methods (like x-rays to show bone density) banned on human rights grounds.
Personally I’d rather misidentify 1000 foreign teenagers if it keeps 1 third world 30 year old sex pest out of secondary schools.
We could just scrap the tests and send them all back.
known accurate assessment methods (like x-rays to show bone density)
Even better, saw through a given limb and count the rings on the cross-section.
As the majority of these ‘refugees’ are muslims, and muslims consider the buggering of children (them not being adults means that the banned homosexuality is not taking place) a right of passage, putting alleged children into adult centres gives sexual relief to the adults, and teaches the children what their culture will allow them to do once they grow a beard. Results all round.
Islam considers adulthood at 14, so the margin of error of testing for 18 is going to sweep them all up.
a hundred refugee children’s organisations
Must be a good business.
Refugee child care centers sprang up in Minnesota. Nick Shirley, citizen reporter, went to a few and found ZERO children at them. The scam has been pegged at up to $9B.
Now, how do you audit a ‘refugee children’s organisation?’
What do they even do‽
This got me thinking – is 100 NGOs just the tip of the iceberg?
According to perplexity.ai:
What the data shows
How to interpret “refugee charities”Two nuances worth flagging:
l
Hold on, the Proggies demanding that 16-year-olds have adult rights in the polling booth, so how on earth can they complain about 16-year-olds being banged up in adult prisons?
One of the many pieces of doublethink about age. See also attidues to age limits on buying alcohol or tobacco or vapes, or using social media.
Tbh the whole “you’re either an adult or a child” thing is probably a bit reductionist given the way we treat young people. Perhaps it would be better to define some intermediate group, “adolescent” maybe, and then think what we want the group as a whole to be able to do.
My guess is all these charities would rather 1000 adult refugees were treated as children than one child gets treated as an adult.
This problem gets a lot easier when you adopt the position of no more “refugees”, ever, of any claimed age or sadness of story.
International agreements don’t force us to accept refugees, there is a right to claim asylum, but no corresponding rule that it must be granted.
Therefore minimise the time “child” and other “refugees” spend trying their luck at our expense by creating a rapid system of multiple daily deportation flights. Best place to stop the ones who arrive at airports is the airport. Get back on the return flight. For the illegal or irregular arrivals, they’ve already committed a crime by entering or staying in the UK. Get the criminal justice and Border Force working with the same alacrity they showed over mostly peaceful protests against migrant child-stabbers. Have a couple of dedicated Con Airs (RAF transports) for the violent ones, staffed and secured appropriately. But most will go quietly with a couple of quid in their pocket for sweeties for being good boys and not making a fuss.
It’s 2026, we’ve got internet and everything now. If Amazon can sell me a bag of cat litter with a one click experience and direct to my door the next day, there’s no reason why Abdul and his cousin-wives should spend more than 48 hours in UK custody before being sent on their merries. They don’t have to go home, but they can’t stay here.
There are a minority of genuine refugees. One of David Cameron’s few bright ideas was to set up refugee processing centres in Syria where guys could identify genuine Iraqi refugees with ability to check claims. Similar centres in Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, even Gaza would be cheaper than trying to investigate illegal entrants from Calais
Why would we want “genuine” refugees to come here?
Because they add massive value – just look at the benefits from the Jewish refugees from Hitler (and a few like Michael Marks from Russian pogroms) and the Huguenot refugees from France and the Flemish weavers that made England wealthy and …
john77 – which groups of “refugees” in the year of our Lord 2026 are adding “massive value” to the non-criminal aspects of British life?
I am happy to take a few more Jews, but I fear the traffic will be going the other way. In any case, the only genuine refugees in the world at the moment are Ukrainians, all of whom should be returned the moment war ends. Even the fit ones.
Ask that chap you worship. I think he was a painter or something, as he spoke about two coats.
The problem is not the AI, its trying to make the judgement at all. Just send them all back. No AI needed. No children being housed with adults.
Your presupposition is that they are all fake. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The first refugee I met was a Christian ex-German of Jewish descent, the second was a Polish Battle-of-Britain RAF pilot.
I have met numerous genuine refugees since then,
That must have been the back end of middle of last Milennium then…
This is not a “Black Swan” logical problem.
It’s a bulk “production” probem where you can prove, with ease, that at least 95% of the product is faulty and does *not* comply with required standards.
I was not alive in 1600 or 1700 so your comment is insane.
Since both of those were refugees before the 1951 Convention, that’s irrelevant.
Yes, they were but the 1951 Convention did not change the causes that made people refugees, so *your comment* is irrelevant; the 1951 convention was a belated statement about how democratic countries should treat/should have treated refugees. .
It’s not about the causes that make people refugees. Since the numbers of potential refugees is equal to the number of people on the planet, it’s about the obligations to accept them. Even in the 30s the UK was not accepting all Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany. The 51 Convention was foisted on the publics of the signatory nations because by that time the numbers had shrunk to trivial. So the question is, “belated statement” by who? The statement was being made by those wouldn’t have to deal with the problems.
As for your having met “genuine” refugees, some members of the families of the people I grew up with had numbers tattooed on their arms.
So you know that some refugees are genuine. It is a trick by the BBC, Grauniad etc to describe refugees as “asylum seekers” to conflate them with illegal economic migrants paying smugglers.
FYI Jerzy (called George by the time I met him) was undoubtedly genuine not “genuine” – he couldn’t go back to Poland because he had fought against both the Germans and Soviet Russia in 1939.
If they’re economic migrants they can’t be refugees, can they?
And I can easily trump that. Friend’s father was in the Lithuanian army when the Soviets annexed Lithuania. Interned as a POW he was “volunteered”into the Red Army. Captured by the Germans he was again a POW until “volunteered” into the SS as a concentration camp guard. In the closing days of the war he skipped from the camp & made is way to Austria where he ended up in a US DP camp on false papers. The Yanks passed him over to the Brits & he subsequently worked as a coal miner in Notts. Married a Russian woman along the way. When he died he’d had the war crimes people sniffing round him.
Point being, how are all these people the problem of the Bloke in the bar of the British pub? Because that’s who’s being made to pay the price. Not fucking “kind hearted” British politicians.
They ARE all fake. Because of UK’s location, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to receive valid asylum seekers.
“Coming from Calais” is a clue.
Concertina wire on the beaches, backed by Browning M1919A4s, is the proper response for a real, sovereign nation. Which UK has decided it is not.
BTW, I do love the “Christian ex-German of Jewish descent” and “Polish Battle-of-Britain RAF pilot” appeals to pity. Should any arrive in rubber boats from Calais, I’d grant them asylum. I’m not heartless.
I agree with John77 by the way.
All Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, and Polish fighter pilots who wish to enlist in the RAF should be granted asylum.
Nobody else though, we’ve taken in too many people already. Ukrainians have a right, imo, to ask for asylum in Britain. They are a fellow European country within reasonable geographic proximity and we’re deeply involved in their war effort. If you’re fleeing oppression in Asia or Africa, you have my sympathies but the solution to foreign strife can’t continue to be “they all move thousands of miles away to Britain and onto benefits”. Africa and Asia are vast continents, with plenty of room for their own people. On what possible “genuine” grounds can “refugees” from these continents claim asylum in Britain? It’s obvious benefits shopping. No, we can’t allow the international political refugee system to continue to be abused by hordes of free riders looking for handouts at the British taxpayer’s expense. That’s mental. Wibble.
It’s not really a matter whether they’re fake or not. It’s whether the UK should have the obligation to grant asylum. The “first country” thing is really irrelevant. There’s possibly 10 or 20 million people in the world, presently, that the UK could be obliged to grant asylum if they showed up at a UK border. Genuine refugees. So it’s really whether the UK should be obliged to grant refugees asylum, period.
Worth going back to pre-war, when not all those fleeing Nazi Germany were granted admission. And immediate post-war. Jews leaving Europe were denied entry to the British Mandate Palestine. The 51 Convention was a bit of madness. Labour Party. Always generous when other people are paying the price.
In other words, you should let them in if it suits you. Not if it only suits them.
Thats the way Oz used to do it…..
As usual, it’s all about spurious “rights” with little thought about who has to discharge the obligations.
So it’s really whether the UK should be obliged to grant refugees asylum, period.
If you don’t grant them asylum, they aren’t refugees.
@ Gamecock
No, it is possible, although rubber dinghies operated by people-traffickers come from France/Belgium/Holland, aircraft can come non-stop from roughly half the world. There are political refugees from Africa who caught a flight after learning they were due to be arrested/tortured before the instructions to detain them reached staff at the airport.
I’d say Ma Deuce is a bit overkill. 7.65 or 5.56 perfectly adequate..
M1919A4 is not Ma Deuce. It’s thirty-ought-six.