Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[Notch7]

Sure, the UK has advanced radar and drone surveillance monitoring the channel. All the normal shipping, fishing and leisure craft are easy to filter, because they (mostly) have something called AIS. This is basically your number plate and your radio broadcasts this constantly with your Lat/long. So you are only looking for small craft heading from France at lowish speeds that do not transmit an AIS. Almost no uncontrolled landings occur, because most of the small boats are tracked and intercepted. So finding them and tracking them is not the problem. It will take them at least 2 hours from departure to reach the limit. It will take an intercept less than 30 minutes to meet them.

Before they get to UK territorial waters, that are intercepted and asked if they are in distress and require assistance. A yes, results in a mayday relay call to French coastguard, who will task the nearest vessel to assist, unless they have SARs vessels in the vicinity. Any vessel tasked to assist a vessel in distress has the right to take them to a French port, which will be the nearest, given they are not yet in UK waters. They do not require the permission of French authorities and cannot themselves be prosecuted for trafficking. SOLAS rules protect them.

Assuming the illegals are wise to this, and say they Do not require assistance (which is usual when in French waters), they are refused entry to UK waters and instructed to turn around. All the time they are not in distress they can be forcibly pushed back at the UK limit

What can't happen is for the UK to just pop them on a boat when picked up in UK waters and take them back to France, without permission. So the way Reform describe it, is a little off, but no doubt there will be smart maritime lawyers helping them, for the appropriate fee.

Oh what a lovely story you’ve made up there, shame it’s all wrong


Your Billy bullsh1t grows daily

I see a bunch of ficko Reform supporting fickos have liked your post……which just goes to prove how easily fooled they are.

 

[motorbiking]

Oh what a lovely story you’ve made up there, shame it’s all wrong


Your Billy bullsh1t grows daily

I see a bunch of ficko Reform supporting fickos have liked your post……which just goes to prove how easily fooled they are.

I see a claim of it being all wrong, without a single argument or source being presented. I smell NotchyFacts™

Is the legal aspect unclear?
Do you think its impossible to track the boats?
Perhaps you think they can out manoeuvre the interceptors.

How are you getting on with explaining why we have record breaking numbers of small boats arriving this year.

 

[Highway Man]

Oh what a lovely story you’ve made up there, shame it’s all wrong


Your Billy bullsh1t grows daily

I see a bunch of ficko Reform supporting fickos have liked your post……which just goes to prove how easily fooled they are.

Triggered.

 

[motorbiking]

Border force were even given training.

Channel crossings: Border Force staff seen 'training to use turn-around tactics'

Home Secretary Priti Patel has said she wants the UK Border Force to be able to turn away migrant boats and send them back to France. According to reports, border officials have already started training staff in "pushback tactics".

news.sky.com

 

[Notch7]

I see a claim of it being all wrong, without a single argument or source being presented. I smell NotchyFacts™

I have provided the evidence numerous times, your squirming is getting tedious

So once again I will go through it for you:

British vessels Can not pick up migrants in small boats and drop them at French ports without an agreement

1) According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), external and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention), external, states are allowed to pick people up from boats if they are "found at sea in danger of being lost".

BUT: But these laws do not allow them to be taken to another state without that country agreeing.


2) Article 19 of UNCLOS says that if a "foreign ship" enters another country's territorial waters it will "be considered to be prejudicial to the peace" if "it engages in the loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the immigration laws" of that country.

3) James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France"

4)Ainhoa Campàs Velasco, a maritime law expert from the University of Southampton, said migrants could not be returned to French shores, "unilaterally, and without prior agreement with France".






so Motorbiking, off you toddle and no doubt come back once youve thought out yet another string of logically fallacious arguments

 

[Notch7]

Border force were even given training.

Channel crossings: Border Force staff seen 'training to use turn-around tactics'

Home Secretary Priti Patel has said she wants the UK Border Force to be able to turn away migrant boats and send them back to France. According to reports, border officials have already started training staff in "pushback tactics".

news.sky.com

not true, theres no evidence they were given pushback training

"home office would not confirm that the exercises were "pushback tactics"



and in any case the pushbacks element of the Borders bill was withdrawn before judicial review as it was realised it never going to be deemed legal.

 

[motorbiking]

I have provided the evidence numerous times, your squirming is getting tedious

So once again I will go through it for you:

British vessels Can not pick up migrants in small boats and drop them at French ports without an agreement

1) According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), external and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention), external, states are allowed to pick people up from boats if they are "found at sea in danger of being lost".

BUT: But these laws do not allow them to be taken to another state without that country agreeing.


2) Article 19 of UNCLOS says that if a "foreign ship" enters another country's territorial waters it will "be considered to be prejudicial to the peace" if "it engages in the loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the immigration laws" of that country.

3) James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France"

4)Ainhoa Campàs Velasco, a maritime law expert from the University of Southampton, said migrants could not be returned to French shores, "unilaterally, and without prior agreement with France".






so Motorbiking, off you toddle and no doubt come back once youve thought out yet another string of logically fallacious arguments

an entirely different scenario (noting the errors in the article), which I also commented on:

What can't happen is for the UK to just pop them on a boat when picked up in UK waters and take them back to France, without permission. So the way Reform describe it, is a little off, but no doubt there will be smart maritime lawyers helping them, for the appropriate fee.

There is a difference. Article 19 and 25 provides the power for pushback.

 

[Notch7]

an entirely different scenario (noting the errors in the article), which I also commented on:

A British vessel can not enter French territorial waters, pick up migrants and return them to French shores

There is a difference

there is no difference in practice because both require Frances permission

James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, told us: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".

 

[Highway Man]

A British vessel can not enter French territorial waters, pick up migrants and return them to French shores



there is no difference in practice because both require Frances permission

James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, told us: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".

I cannot see why you are so obsessed with this, MBK has explained the rules to you and they seem pretty clear to me, you really should listen to people more.

 

[motorbiking]

not true, theres no evidence they were given pushback training

"home office would not confirm that the exercises were "pushback tactics"



and in any case the pushbacks element of the Borders bill was withdrawn before judicial review as it was realised it never going to be deemed legal.

yeah they were just on a jolly, playing with some jet skis

A British vessel can not enter French territorial waters, pick up migrants and return them to French shores



there is no difference in practice because both require Frances permission

James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, told us: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".

You keep repeating the answer that a lawyer gave to a different question. The scenarios are very simple:

1. Vessel carrying illegal immigrants heading for the UK, currently in French Waters
This is not innocent passage as defined by UNCLOS article 19(2)(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

Article 25 allows the UK to take the necessary steps to prevent their passage to UK waters. They can be legally repelled.

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

2. Vessel carrying illegal immigrants heading for the UK, currently in French Waters in Distress

SOLAS 33 applies: The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so. If the ship receiving the distress alert is unable or, in the special circumstances of the case, considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to proceed to their assistance, the master must enter in the log-book the reason for failing to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress, taking into account the recommendation of the Organization, to inform the appropriate search and rescue service accordingly.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f0081ed915d74e33f3c6e/solas_v_on_safety_of_navigation.pdf

Please do read the rules you will find - no obligation under SOLAS 33 to seek permission from anyone. He may be releaved of his obligation by a coordinating SARs. If he rescues people he is free to take them to the nearest safe port of his choice.

In the above scares the illegals have the following choices:

1. comply with the demand to return
2. try to push through - good luck
3. request assistance due to being in distress

 

[Deleted member 323070]

The fact they are logged is evidence they are detected.

But where are they detected is the essential point.

They do not have to intercept all, just create the fear that those paying will be sent back, so maybe it's not worth the money. Also given it's costing us over £6Bn a year. I think a few boats can be purchased. £50M would buy 10 boats and cost £5M a year to run. Bargain.

The threat of being sent to Rwanda was as feeble as the threat of being returned.

Article 25 - Rights of protection of the coastal State

1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters or a call at a port facility outside internal waters, the coastal State also has the right to take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to internal waters or such a call is subject.

3. The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

So (1) says they can do whatever is necessary, no mention of reasonably necessary or without force. (2) Gives them the right to act, when the ship is outside their internal waters. (3)Gives the state the right to create a limited exclusion zone in order to more easily manage their activities.

The words "is not innocent" is the relevant bit. A boat load of unarmed, refugees is not, and cannot be considered as 'not innocent'.
If the UK starts to use the Channel for live firing exercise, I'll accept that is a genuine reason for preventing the passage of innocent boats.
I hope you noticed the reference to "innocent passage" in section 3.

So (1) the refugees are innocent, and to use this section to prevent the passage of refugee boats would cause an outrage.
(2) refers to boats that met the criteria of not innocent. Thus if (1) does not apply, then neither does (2).
(3) could apply if the UK ever start using the Channel for live firing exercises.

Article 25 says they can do whatever is necessary to block access.

Your whole argument hangs on your description of a boat load of refugees as "not innocent".
Of course they're innocent. There is no crime in applying for asylum.

They have three choices. Sit there all day, getting cold, turn back or accept the offer of a lift. It is very easy for a powerful vessel to interfere with a vessel with limited propulsion and manoeuvrability.

You cannot wilfully endanger another vessel and risk lives.
Call yourself a boater?

The greeks do it all the time. They have 3 RIBs with 50 cals and a couple of 300hp outboards in KOS marina. The crew are armed and they forcibly encourage the illegals to head back to Turkey. Highly effective.

And the Greeks are subject to prosecution.

Until such time the repelling vessel has power under Article 25 UNCLOS. Once the vessel seeks help SOLAS reg 33 applies.
Article 25 UNCLOS says otherwise

Your whole argument rests on your interpretation of SOLAS, and describing asylum seekers as "not innocent".
Your interpretation is twisted by your ideology.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

My claim is backed by evidence. Muppet

I've not seen anything that can be called evidence.
If I had your name I could request your details of military service under a freedom of information request.
I don't know your name, and I have no interest in exposing you as a liar. But by the same token, I have no idea if your claims are valid.
One Billy Liar that I knew claimed his occasional absences were explained by his secret manoeuvres in the SAS.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Is the legal aspect unclear?

It's your interpretation of SOLAS and description of asylum seekers s "not innocent".

Do you think its impossible to track the boats?

Tracking and intercepting are two different activities.

Perhaps you think they can out manoeuvre the interceptors.

Easily done if the interceptors are not in the vicinity.
By the time the interceptors arrive, the boats are in UK waters.

How are you getting on with explaining why we have record breaking numbers of small boats arriving this year.

The figures are not yet available.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Border force were even given training.

Channel crossings: Border Force staff seen 'training to use turn-around tactics'

Home Secretary Priti Patel has said she wants the UK Border Force to be able to turn away migrant boats and send them back to France. According to reports, border officials have already started training staff in "pushback tactics".

news.sky.com

And some refused, in fear of prosecution.,

 

[Deleted member 323070]

There is a difference. Article 19 and 25 provides the power for pushback.

According to your interpretation only.