Saturday, May 12, 2007

Arrivederci Roma ?

The really wild card is the Roma question. A UN study last year found that 80% were unemployed and one in five were permanently hungry. The governments of Eastern Europe have been urged to pass laws to outlaw discrimination. It is, however, hard to say what impact this will have on the lives of the Roma and how they will perceive the alternative of migrating to Western Europe, particularly Britain. This is not a question that is amenable to mathematical calculations.

Migrationwatch, July 2003.


Roma children flood into Slough


A Berkshire town has been struggling to cope with nearly 90 children who have arrived unaccompanied from Eastern Europe. The Roma children, one as young as ten, have apparently paid someone in Romania to send them to Slough. The Borough Council does not know why it has been singled out but has been forced to set up a special team and spend £150,000 helping the children. It has called for more government help to offset the strain on other services.

Strain on services ? They're doing us a favour coming here, surely. The council should be flush with all that extra tax revenue. Don't even get me started on the diversity.

The children usually arrive in groups of three, but six have had babies of their own and seven have been pregnant. The local authority has had to set up an emergency Roma assessment team.

I wonder what that 'have been pregnant' means ? Babies, or 'terminations' ?


UPDATE - the "unaccompanied children" seem to have been arriving for some time.

Kent's director of social services Peter Gilroy warned: "If I don't get help from my local authority colleagues then I have no other course than to develop further our work with the private sector because we are reaching the point of saturation."

The council said that it currently looked after 2,000 asylum seeking children and that another 150 arrived every month. Already 400 of the older children, mainly 17- to 18-year-old boys, were being cared for in private hostel accommodation.


As well informed commenter Observer points out :

Provision of Accommodation for Children (Section 22-23, Children Act, 1989)

Local Authorities also have a duty to provide accommodation for a child in need who requires accommodation as a result of:

* no one having parental responsibility for him or her
* being lost of abandoned
* the person who has been caring for him or her being prevented from providing him with suitable accommodation and care.

26 comments:

Miles said...

If Roma people are citizens of the EU they have just as much right to be here as the many thousands of retired Brits who live in spouthern Spain.
Get over it.

verity said...

I don't believe you can go to southern Spain and sign on welfare.

Dave said...

Citizens of the EU?
And when did the British people vote to be part of that?
I sure as hell didn't, this has been forced on us. The whole thing.

I'm British, or English when the breakup of the UK is complete, I'll never be an EU citizen no matter what superstate fascists pretending to be advocating freedom like Miles say.

Miles said...

Verity
You can't come here as an EU citizen and sign on welfare either - until you have worked for a year.
If you are a non-EU citizen claiming asylum you have to claim welfare because you are banned from working even though all the refugees I know want to work.
Demand the right for asylum seekers to work if you want to cut welfare costs.

Dave
At general election after general election the voters have supported pro-EU parties.
It's called democracy.
I didn't vote for trade unions to be so emasculated that working people are bullied from dawn to dusk by massively profitable businesses - but it happens.

verity said...

OK,Miles, then what are these Romanies doing wanting charity from the British taxpayer? They're in the EU, so they can't be political refugees.

And many of these "children" were pregnant. Hmmm ...

If I were Slough, I'd say,"Hello? Can you read the signs at the airport? It says the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not Dustbin to The Universe. 'Bye."

Dave said...

No Miles the British people in poll after poll have shown hostility to the EU.
At the time of a general election we are given the choice of massively pro-EU Lib Dems, the will put us at the heart of the EU New Labour party, or the pretend anti-EU but sign-up to everything the EU-crats want Conservatives.
Thats not what I'd call democracy.

You may not have voted to emasculate Unions but thats different, its at least reversible, the changes in our countries sovereignty are not easily reversible if at all.
If you object to people being "bullied from dawn to dusk by massively profitable businesses" you would call for an end to cheap labour movement around the world which global big businesses use to depress local wages, and call for a return to sensible national controlled immigration at manageable numbers.

Laban said...

Hi Miles. Welcome to the pleasuredome and thanks for the comments. Always a pleasure to have a few opposing views.

Foxy Brown said...

Miles,

The ex-pats who live in Spain are self-sufficient and not self serving.

Anonymous said...

Miles - plenty of economic liberals just lurve mass immigration. It proves what they want to believe about labour mobility. But it has a much more beneficial effect in the medium term - it will destroy the welfare systems of the western nations. Bingo!

Guess we know which team you are on.

verity said...

Miles dijo...
"Verity
You can't come here as an EU citizen and sign on welfare either - until you have worked for a year."

Well, gosh, that's a bit of a major surprise given that these juveniles are apparently EUSSR citizen, yet are sucking money out of the British worker.

Put them on a plane hungry and drop them off somewhere. They'll find a way to survive. We're not an outgrowth of the continent, a dumping ground for the ticks, fleas, leeches and other bloodsuckers of the EUSSR.

Observer said...

Miles cannot read.

The issue in Slough is children. We are forbidden from using child labour which makes us extremely uncompetitive with China.

I see Miles thinks the law should be amended so these Roman children could be put to work....it is a very valid point...

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."


A kindred spirit Miles.....if only we had workhouses for these Roma children ! You are so right.

Anonymous said...

If Roma people are citizens of the EU they have just as much right to be here as the many thousands of retired Brits who live in spouthern Spain.
Get over it.


The British pensioner has a right to a UK pension.....but not to a Spanish one.

If only these Roma children were satisfied with Rumanian levels of support in Slough.....

verity said...

Put them on a plane back and dump them on the Romanian authorities. Otherwise, there'll be another 90, including pregnant "children" and "children" carrying babies, next week and the following week 150.

Return them to the safe EU country of which they are citizens. There is no excuse or sophistry that could be twisted into them being the responsibiltyi of taxpayers in a country a thousand miles away.

BTW,Oberserver, you say "children" can't work. Does that include pregnant "children"?

Observer said...

BTW,Oberserver, you say "children" can't work. Does that include pregnant "children"?

1:45 PM


Regulations

Regulation 1

REgulation 3

The relevant EC Directive (94/33) defines child as 'any young person of less than 15 years of age or who is still subject to compulsory full-time schooling under national law'.



The main piece of legislation covering the employment of young people under 16 is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. However, there are over 200 pieces of relevant legislation. These include 15 European and international instruments, 16 Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments and 172 local authority by-laws. Relevant Acts of Parliament include the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 (prohibition on school children working in industrial occupations), the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, the Employment Act 1989, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and the Children (Protection at Work) Regulations (Nos.1 and 2) 2000.

The Employment of Children Act 1973 was designed to standardise the rules relating to the employment of children throughout the country and to remove local variation, including that relating to the regulation of employment of 13 year olds. However, this Act has never been brought into force. Local authorities at the time argued that they had insufficient resources to implement the legislation.

In 1995, the Department of Health issued a consultation document on the employment of children. This proposed model by-laws and legislative amendments to bring UK law into line with EC Directive 94/33/EC. The main changes following the period of consultation were a requirement that local authority by-laws should contain a list of ‘permitted’ occupations for 13 year olds; that by-laws should make it clear that children should have a period free of work during the school holidays and amendments to s.18 Children and Young Persons Act, mainly in relation to the hours that can be worked by children.



Enjoy yourself Verity, labour law is an exciting area to keep any employer from getting bored in EU Nirvana-Land

verity said...

Observer - Thanks for the post. I almost stayed awake all the way through it. I thought it may be too exciting to click on the links, though.

Not much human kindness flowing through readers of The Daily Mail. Most of them are for putting these trainee beggars and criminals on a plane and dumping them back in Romania with £50 each so they can find their own way back to their loving families.

Observer said...

then what are these Romanies doing wanting charity from the British taxpayer?

It is not CHARITY - it is a Statutory Obligation on Local authorities

http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1933CaYPAct.shtml

Provision of Accommodation for Children (Section 22-23, Children Act, 1989)

Local Authorities also have a duty to provide accommodation for a child in need who requires accommodation as a result of:

* no one having parental responsibility for him or her
* being lost of abandoned
* the person who has been caring for him or her being prevented from providing him with suitable accommodation and care.

Before providing accommodation, the Local Authority should ascertain the Child's wishes and feelings about being accommodated and give due consideration to them.

Except in the case of a child of 16 or over who wishes to be accommodated, the accommodation arrangement is a voluntary arrangement between the Local Authority and the parent or other person with parental responsibilities.

Consequently, such a person may end the arrangement by objecting to it continuing (provided she or he is willing and able to accommodate the child her or himself or to arrange for accommodation to be provided), and may at any time remove the child from accommodation.
.


You seem very unfamiliar with English Law Verity


Duties owed to a looked after child

The main duties owed to a child who is looked after by the Local Authority are:

1. To safeguard the child's welfare
2. To make use of services available for children cared for by their parents
3. Before making a decision about him, to ascertain her or his wishes and feelings and give them due consideration, having regard to her or his age and understanding. This duty also extends to the child's parents, anyone else having parental responsibility, and anyone else whose wishes and feelings the Local Authority considers relevant.
4. Before making a decision, to give due consideration to the child's religious, racial, cultural and linguistic background.
5. To provide maintenance for the child
6. If it is reasonably practicable and consistent with the Child's welfare, ensure that she or he is accommodated near her or his home and together with any sibling who is also being looked after.
7. To advise, assist and befriend the child with a view to promoting her or his welfare when she or he ceases being looked after.

Observer said...

Most of them are for putting these trainee beggars and criminals on a plane and dumping them back in Romania with £50 each so they can find their own way back to their loving families.

The High Court would issue an injunction as soon as a charity filed its application.

This is not a problem restricted to Roma - Kent is flooded with afghans, and various Africans who are using the same loophole.

This has been going on for years

2002

Anonymous said...

These people come here ostensibly to work. However in my experience the majority are here to steal. A common tactic is "distraction burglary" where gangs of Roma pile into a village shop and when the shopkeeper is suitably distracted they steal what they can. The reason so many children are coming is because it is more difficult for the police to prosecute them. As for allowing crap countries like Romania and Bulgaria into the EU. Well no one it appears thought to ask us. This is the result. Thousands of deadbeats, thieves and beggars flooding our shores. Also they may in theory not be able to obtain welfare but if they are "destitute" the local authority is obliged to house them. A Customs officer friend of mine once dealt with a family of Roma failed asylum seekers that had been kicked out of Britain pre Romania's accession. They had £30,000 in cash. Since none of them were allowed to work it would seem that crime in their case really did pay!

verity said...

OK, shoot them. You've got to get rid of infestations or they will destroy the host.

I must confess, Observer, that I haven't the faintest familiary with English law regarding the dumping of foreign "orphans/beggars/thieves" and I will probably maintain this status for the rest of my life.

Observer said...

I must confess, Observer, that I haven't the faintest familiary with English law regarding the dumping of foreign "orphans/beggars/thieves" and I will probably maintain this status for the rest of my life.

A real pity - because here ignorance of the law is no defence.

The Act in question was passed in 1988 when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister - she too loved loading responsibilities onto Local Authorities without funding them.....and as you know Local Councils can only act intra vires

verity said...

Observer - "A real pity - because here ignorance of the law is no defence."

That is why God gave us lawyers.

Observer said...

That is why God gave us lawyers.

My, you are naive. Lawyers are businessmen who seek to profit from your misfortune and to transfer your liquid assets to their own account.

Anyone who thinks lawyers aren't there to spin matters out into a big payday has never been in court

verity said...

Observer - You're a pompous twerp.

You are not revealing any secrets of the universe unknown to the rest of us. Plse don't give me any more of your legal opinions as I don't live in an English Common Law country so don't bother reading them anyway.

Laban said...

Best of order please, ladies and gentlemen !

Observer said...

verity said...

Observer - You're a pompous twerp.


Verity you should not feel I have spurned your advances. Posting comments like that caues Laban to read them and let your little secret out...we could have kept such matters very discreet. I should have preferred it that way.

verity said...

Observer- Laban has asked for courtesy on this thread, albeit only when I answered your rudeness with a sharp response.

I backed off because we are on Laban's property and he sets the rules. You did not because your fragile ego was at stake. You immediately thought - oh, God! what a surprise! - to try to change the argument to a sexual one.

I joined this thread to contribute to the discussion, as bloggers do. I joined not as a man or a woman, but as a thinking person.

I have a right to be answered within the terms of the argument,not be patronised because I'm a woman, and not suddenly have sexual innuendos thrown at me. You will respond, of course, as cowards always do, that you were "only joking". But you weren't. You were angry. If Laban does not reprimand you for sexual harrassment, I won't be returning.