Vocal Voices

The Home Office considered the asylum seeker was around the age of 26. The asylum seeker claimed he was a child under 16 years of age.

A Court has ruled that he is indeed a child.

A statement from the Judge who presided said that he does have thick hair on his arms and legs but I consider that thick hair on the body is no indication of age. She also admitted that he had lines on his forehead but considered they were not deep enough to say he was not a child.

If the asylum seeker is a 'schoolboy' he may very well be placed in a school with much younger children. This would not be the first time this has happened.

I have no idea why Judges come to such decisions and put younger and less strong school children at risk. However, the Human Rights Lawyers have a lot to answer for. They make a very good living by representing failed asylum seekers so why should they give their lucrative income up?

The individual cannot be identified in any meaningful way; no name, no images, no real details, only hearsay. It follows that we, the public, cannot make any reasoned assessment of what is what.

This puts the case in the court of social media, and we all know where that can lead.

There are medical means of assessing the age of a person when it is in doubt and they should always be used - no opt-out for the person making the claim, especially when they have 'lost' their real identification.

The decision should not come down to the opinions of members of a tribunal who will not have the relevant qualifications nor expertise in deciding these things.

Surely medical testing could sort this out? I agree it should definitely not be guesswork I will just say that Arab and Levantine males do seem to get hairy younger than Europeans do.