Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'Nowhere else for them to go’: what next for 100,000 Ukrainians and the Britons who took them in?


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

People all over the UK welcomed refugees into their homes under a government scheme. The children got school places; the adults found jobs. But the commitment was for just six months – and time is up.

More than 104,100 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK under the sponsorship scheme, while another 40,000 came to stay with relatives. “We have never done anything on this scale. The Kindertransport brought around 10,000 children here in 1939. This is 144,000 people in just over six months – it’s unbelievable,” says Krish Kandiah, who this year launched the Sanctuary Foundation, which became one of the matching organisations helping hosts to find refugees in need of homes. “This is a global gamechanger in terms of refugee sponsorship schemes.”

When the scheme was launched in March, hosts were asked to make a commitment for a minimum of six months. That period has expired for those who were quickly granted visas in March and April, and while most hosts are happy to extend the invitation for another six months or a year, some are beginning to feel uneasy about an emergency arrangement becoming permanent.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/homes-for-ukraine-refugees-ukrainian-britons-scheme

Long Read

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to 'Nowhere else for them to go’: what next for 100,000 Ukrainians and the Britons who took them in?
 

I feel sorry for all concerned, but honestly, it was obvious it was all going to end in tears right from the start. :hmm:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

I feel sorry for all concerned, but honestly, it was obvious it was all going to end in tears right from the start. :hmm:

I admire those who took on the responsibility to help the Ukrainians in need.  I wish more of the 70+ billion in aid we've given them would have been used to help house and feed them with some kind of monthly stipend.  Countries that have absorbed a million or more - like Poland - should be given financial aid to help with that burden.  Somehow, I doubt much of the $ will ever be put where it would do the most good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make for me an army worthy of Mordor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

About 51,000 people who came to the UK under the Homes For Ukraine scheme have now reached the end of their six-month sponsorship period, the BBC has found.

UK sponsors agreed to house Ukrainians for a minimum of six months - and BBC analysis suggests almost half of those who arrived under the scheme have now reached the end of their sponsorship.

Councils say some are already homeless after leaving their sponsors' homes.

The government says it is working to ensure they all have somewhere to live.

Homes for Ukraine: Sponsorship ends for thousands of Ukrainians - BBC News

Edited by pellinore
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why 6 months was the "magical" line they drew?  It sounds like a funding issue and I can't think of a better use of some of the BILLIONS in aid Ukraine has received than to issue a stipend to help their citizens who've had to flee the fighting.  The U.S. is funding their pensions, after all, so why can't they make an arrangement with the UK to keep their citizens off the streets or forced to return to the battle zones?  It has to be about whose budget the cash will deplete and no one wants it to be THEIRS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, and-then said:

I wonder why 6 months was the "magical" line they drew?  It sounds like a funding issue and I can't think of a better use of some of the BILLIONS in aid Ukraine has received than to issue a stipend to help their citizens who've had to flee the fighting.  The U.S. is funding their pensions, after all, so why can't they make an arrangement with the UK to keep their citizens off the streets or forced to return to the battle zones?  It has to be about whose budget the cash will deplete and no one wants it to be THEIRS 

It’s less a funding issue and more a “how short are peoples’ memories? We look good on th3 day and then six months later no one is watching” pure politics.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

It’s less a funding issue and more a “how short are peoples’ memories? We look good on th3 day and then six months later no one is watching” pure politics.

You are right. It is gratifying making the "grand gesture", a pain in the ass keeping it up. It's how buskers make money- some people who throw some coins in a hat in front of a crowd would ordinarily walk by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.