General Chat

Dermot, I speak as one who has a family member who teaches three languages not as someone who has a grudge against interpreters. I would pay for my own if I lived in a country whose language I had no knowledge of. I have friends who live overseas and who do that.

I'd rather that people spoke the language of the country they wanted to live in. It makes for coherence and shows determination to settle. It also saves government spending (hence our taxes) in a variety of ways.

Teaching the language in schools during evenings works. Like Su, I have experience of it and also like her, I believe it is a good road to integration.

The UK is obliged to accept refugees regardless of their race, religion, color or the language they speak. This applies to the old and the young alike. Of course such obligations are fine words but less popular with countries that have done a great deal to provoke untold misery in the Middle East and then just walk away. In T May's case she has tried hard to get the UN to reduce the rights of refugees but without success.

It is supremely illogical to demand that refugees speak English.

How would you have handled the flight of the Huguenots ?
Oh, I see it's different. How so ? They certainly couldn't speak English. Most had false papers with the names such as Bel Ami.

Brexit UKIP the Daily Snail the rags of Aaron Banks plus their quislings in the Labour Party have brought nothing but shame and ridicule to the United Kingdom, a shame our kin in Ireland and Scotland want naught to do with. And rightly so.

btw refugees are not allowed to work and the pittance they are supposed to get by one has been reduced. How would they pay for language lessons?

Honestly Rollo, you talk complete rubbish, so much so that I wouldn't know where to begin so I'm bailing out of this conversation! Unbelievable nonsense!

wunderbar

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/19/child-refugees-asylum-seekers-detained-adult

*sigh* I do wish people wouldn't make assumptions.

Did I say that I would have dealt with Huguenots differently?

Aged BILS' ancestors were immigrants on both Maternal and Paternal sides.

Jacobs who were weavers in Bethnal Green and Gilderslieves/Guerriers who worked at whatever was on offer.

Names changed (at least 15 times through the years until 1900 when only 2 versions of Gruer and Greyer were used together with Graham). As the Grahams worked on the docks they were required to have English sounding names.

They had to speak English in order to trade and obviously their childrens' education (what there was of it) was important for their futures.

No different from the aspirations of today's immigrants I would have thought. Only difference is we seem to be more tolerant of non English speaking generations but that will have to change.

I don't think it is expected that refugees speak English, Rollo. I do think it is illogical for them not to learn the language of the country they want to settle in though and I do think that language classes in schools in the evenings are desirable if one really wants to settle. It gets easier for second and third generations too because they go through an education system in the language of the country. It is ludicrous to try to teach children without them first having been taught the language so that ought to be the priority - not an interpreter in every classroom.

Language lessons ought to be provided free as they were several years ago in one of the countries I lived in - they may well still be provided, I don't know. It is in governments' self-interest to provide them free as It is not just a learning experience but, as Su knows, a tool of integration. The outlay would be at the outset and would, no doubt, be cheaper than constant payments by every school and government office.

Who said the Hugeonots were different? You brought that case up. As far as I can see they were persecuted in France in particular because of their different religion. Many ended up in England and eventually integration occurred - more so than would have occurred in some European countries.

I have just read how dental checks and x-rays are difficult to gauge precisely because they could give a reading of two years either side of a certain age.

So ... in light of the fact that officials have been duped in a lot of cases, why not make the age of admission 16? It would then cover those between 14 and 18. It makes sense to me.

I am off to do the school run now but I'll be back to read the viewpoints.

Getting to grips with the English language (or Welsh/Scottish Gaelic) is not easily achieved by, for example, attending evening classes alone.

It's a fact that living amongst those whose language they wish to learn has an opportunity of a vast progress bonus, supplemented if needed by evening study or other home-based inexpensive audio aids which are readily available.

I have experienced & enjoyed this additional way of foreign language comprehension in my younger school days - student swapping was all the rage then, not overlooking the excitement of travelling abroad for a few summer months.

Different circumstances here for sure - but still workable for these unfortunate youngsters being passed around from pillar to post all beyond their control.

They are here in the UK now. Let’s welcome & help them as best we can with an open heart.

Dermot.. you said:

They are here in the UK now. Let’s welcome & help them as best we can with an open heart.

Absolutely :-)

Just caught your post before I go Dermot.

I agree. Language classes and living-learning complement each other well. In my opinion quite the best way to do it.

Now I'm off.

There are around 100 000 bona fide refugees in the UK a state with a population of 60 million. that is 0.016 of the population. It is absurd to say they exert pressure on public services etc etc.

They live in a state of extreme poverty and precarious over crowded accommodation. Much of the time their time is completly taken up by survival. The concept of them having resources for language learning is risable.

Of course it would be a great thing for refugees to learn English but as Home Secretary T May declared that refugees must find the UK an unfriendly face so such ideas are def. not on the agenda of Amber Rudd.

The biggest help that UKGov could give to asylum seekers is allow them to work. Refugees who have been granted residence do of course have the right to work and take full advantage of it. It may surprise UKIP that many have advanced techical and commercial skills.

but T May just wants them to go.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_1

Unfriendly? Wins hands down!

Just to add before I go for my senile nap: I like and respect Mrs May :-)

More than two-thirds of refugees who had their ages assessed after claiming to be children were found to be over the age of 18, Home Office figures reveal. Official government data shows that from the year ending in June, 1,060 asylum applicants' ages were called into question, 933 of whom underwent age assessment tests with 636 (68%) deemed to be over 18.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk
goo.gl/a4VrYN

Then again, unless the 'child' voluntarily admits to their true age, there must be some leeway in decision making. At least the ones brought over from Calais have relatives who will be responsible for their care.

I don't believe the UK presents an unfriendly face any more than France or Turkey and as much as T May is reported as having said we did so, she did not say that the UK was the only one to do so. She is careful with her presentation of words.

The concept of refugees having the resources to learn a language is not risible, Rollo. If free evening language classes were compulsory, the majority of refugees would learn. They have eyes, tongues and ears which is all they need for learning and as you rightly point out (though in different words), some are not stupid.

Sure, for most of them their accommodation is not up to scratch but that is the lot of many when changing countries. Most see the way forward quickly enough ... learn the language, become multi-lingual, a boost in the jobs market, out of poverty and into better accommodation. It's not rocket science, Rollo, and it's been done by migrants in the past.

To say the refugees live in a state of extreme poverty and overcrowding is a bit sweeping.
They may live in utter deprivation in the Calais 'Jungle', but they had enough spare money to pay to get there. Those in extreme poverty are being killed, either by bombs or starvation in their homelands.

Rollo, you state : "The concept of them having resources for language learning is risable"
Yet at 11:47, you stated: "many of the refugees speak English v few French"
Very confusing - which is it? Or is just a case of constant contradiction?

I believe those being allowed entry at the moment have family members already here.

People emigrate because of political problems, plus there is a better chance of finding work abroad & will often return home when there is an improvement there.

Immigrants to Britain are often better qualified than the existing population with many outperforming the locals in higher education.

Blimey, I go away for another week, (Spain, thanks for asking), and look what I come home to. Rollo talking the usual -... --- .-.. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... I sometimes think that he has no great love for the English, Or even the British.

Providing something like free english lessons doesn't mean they will be taken up by everyone. You have to consider 'culture'. I have seen many cases over the years where the wife was either not allowed or not encouraged to learn english despite being in this country many years and despite her children all speaking english. This way the man controlled all the finances, even those that were rightly hers. We already deal with 26 languages in the city schools near me.