Frogs, Wogs and Underdogs

Once again, mere experts have intervened in a blatant attempt to bully Her Majesty's Government into acting within the law, even when protecting British jobs from child asylum seekers. Representatives of thirty-six children (twenty-eight refused, eight still getting the runaround) have issued a legal challenge to the race-baiting Clegg-pledger Amber Rudd, on the grounds that her office has reneged on its commitment under the Dubs amendment, failed to relocate the most vulnerable children, failed to supply proper written decisions with its refusals, and failed to use appropriate discretion in responding to extreme cases.

One such case is that of a fourteen-year-old Afghan whose father helped NATO troops and who was variously shot, buried, starved, sexually abused and tear-gassed before being physically chastised by a baton-wielding gendarme who broke the boy's wrist. The boy has attempted asymmetrical warfare while in Calais, attempting suicide four times; nevertheless, social workers and a psychiatrist have assessed him as suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress. Experts again, what? His legal team wrote twice to the Ministry for Wog Warehousing, which naturally did not deign to respond; and, as might be expected, a Home Office social worker found no evidence that he had any particular emotional or psychological needs commensurate with the interests of the white working class and those British children who have the foresight to avoid being born to foreign mothers.

The Home Office has responded to the legal action by blaming the French and proclaiming that it cannot waste its time paying attention to cases of children who need to take legal action in order to attract the attention of the Home Office.