Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[Notch7]

Then we have the rights of the coastal state to "police" its territorial waters. UNCLOS article 25 (1) Says the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. Article 19 defines passage that is not innocent specifically (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;

This gives the power to prevent ANY vessel entering its waters if their passage is not innocent. Remember at this point in time the illegal migrants have not claimed asylum.

So the coastal state has the right to prevent entry to its waters and the any ship has the right to take rescued people to the nearest port. A vessel is either in distress or on passage, it cannot be both. If its on passage it can be repelled, if its in distress it can be taken back. So long as pushback occurs before the vessel is in UK waters, then it can be legal

please stop repeating the same bolox

if a vessel is in distress pushbacks are not legal

 

[Notch7]

Then we have the rights of the coastal state to "police" its territorial waters. UNCLOS article 25 (1) Says the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. Article 19 defines passage that is not innocent specifically (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;

poor Motorbiking is proven wrong again...........

you are literally quoting a law that proves you are wrong

UNCLOS article 19 defines "innocent passage"

Article 19
Meaning of innocent passage
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.

2 Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea if it engages in any of the following activities:

(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;


So if Border Force enter French territory to load and unload a person, that is not innocent passage and therefore not legal

Motorbiking as you are a lawyer you know very well what Article 19 means, so you are being extremely dishonest in trying to change its meaning to suit yer argument

 

[motorbiking]

WRONG

border force dont have permission to be in French territorial water, so it wont be near a vessel in distress in French water

they don't need permission. SOLAS is clear.

you have not provided the actual verbatim quote from the rules

please provide the actual quote, not your "interpretation"

Click the link and read it you lazy sod

please stop repeating the same bolox

if a vessel is in distress pushbacks are not legal

No where have I suggested a Vessel in distress is governed by UNCLOS Article 19 and 25.

A vessel cannot be both on passage and in distress. It's one or the other.

poor Motorbiking is proven wrong again...........

you are literally quoting a law that proves you are wrong

UNCLOS article 19 defines "innocent passage"

Article 19
Meaning of innocent passage
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.

2 Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea if it engages in any of the following activities:

(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;

So if Border Force enter French territory to load and unload a person, that is not innocent passage and therefore not legal


View attachment 382188


Motorbiking as you are a lawyer you know very well what Article 19 means, so you are being extremely dishonest in trying to change its meaning to suit yer argument

No notch you are either deliberately or otherwise failing to understand.

Borderforce, the navy or G4S or whoever is tasked with the pushback has the job of preventing the vessel on passage from entering UK territorial waters. it is that simple. Keep them out of UK territorial waters. They then have several options:

1) turn around - great
2) try to out manoeuvre the pushback - no chance
3) request assistance as a vessel in distress. - SOLAS Reg 33 applies - the nearest vessel can take them back to France as the closest port.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Given they cross dover to calais,

That's novel.

once they claim asylum.

The SOLAS rules are very clear, the status of those in distress is irrelevant.

SOLAS regulations primarily focus on the safety of life at sea and do not explicitly define a specific "status" for individuals. However, the regulations do outline obligations for ships regarding the rescue and assistance of persons in distress, regardless of their nationality or circumstances.

No they are criminals.

Only in UK domestic law, and only very recently.

Claiming asylum gives them a limited get out of jail card.

Claiming asylum is a human right, not a get out of jail card.

If you do not believe they have committed a crime, please provide evidence that:

It isn't possible to provide evidence that someone has not committed a crime.
TAlk about desperation.

They do - If they make it to the UK they can claim asylum.

They do once they have escaped persecution.

SOLAS is clear - a vessel in distress in French waters can be taken to France without any permission needed.

But it's not an obligation.

So it's important to prevent them passing in to UK waters without further risk. Plenty of ways to do this.

But not at sea and by endangering their lives.

 

[motorbiking]

That's novel.

I think anyone with a 1/3rd of a brain cell would see this as between Dover and Calais as opposed to newhaven dieppe or Portsmouth Cherbourg etc.

The SOLAS rules are very clear, the status of those in distress is irrelevant.

correct - However, their legal status as a vessel is binary:
- on passage - Article 19, 25 of UNCLOS applies - they can be pushed back
- in distress - they can be taken to the nearest port without authorisation from the port.

Only in UK domestic law, and only very recently.

French Law also requires the vessel to be registered as well as the need for a ferry licence.

Claiming asylum is a human right, not a get out of jail card.

Legally it gives limited exemption from prosecution of certain crimes.

It isn't possible to provide evidence that someone has not committed a crime.
TAlk about desperation.

of course it is - I have to provide these every time I take a boat to France.

But not at sea and by endangering their lives.

Article 25 says necessary means .

 

[Deleted member 323070]

they don't need permission. SOLAS is clear.

Thay have the right to, but a) it's not an obligation to, b) It would still be 'courteous to request permission, c) permission can be and has been withheld in Greece. (but probably illegally).

A vessel cannot be both on passage and in distress. It's one or the other.

If a vessel is in distress the circumstances or status of the passengers is irrelevant.

Borderforce, the navy or G4S or whoever is tasked with the pushback has the job of preventing the vessel on passage from entering UK territorial waters. it is that simple. Keep them out of UK territorial waters. They then have several options:

It is illegal, that is why there has been no pushbacks, and some border force operatives have refused to engage in such activities.

Yes, there have been reports of UK Border Force officers refusing to operate pushbacks, with some taking legal action and threatening industrial action if forced to do so. The PCS general secretary, Mark Serwotka stated that the legality of the pushback policy is in serious question and that Border Force officers may be open to civil and criminal action if forced to implement it.

3) request assistance as a vessel in distress. - SOLAS Reg 33 applies - the nearest vessel can take them back to France as the closest port.

If the actions of the 'border force' have created the distress for the migrants boat, that is another breach of international law.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I think anyone with a 1/3rd of a brain cell would see this as between Dover and Calais as opposed to newhaven dieppe or Portsmouth Cherbourg etc.

Anyone with any brain at all would see that you clearly stated "They cross Dover to Calais".

Given they cross dover to calais,

You're becoming befuddled.

correct - However, their legal status as a vessel is binary:
- on passage - Article 19, 25 of UNCLOS applies - they can be pushed back
- in distress - they can be taken to the nearest port without authorisation from the port.

Yes, it's either in distress or it's not.
On passage - it's an innocent vessel and should not be interfered with.
In distress - they must be rescued and there is an obligation for the French to allow the passengers to disembark. But it's reasonable and courteous for the rescuers to request permission, and there is no obligation on the rescuer to land them in France.

French Law also requires the vessel to be registered as well as the need for a ferry licence.

How is this relevant?

Legally it gives limited exemption from prosecution of certain crimes.

Legally it gives exemption from illegal entry if asylum is claimed immediately.
There are no other crimes that I can think of that asylum provides exemption.

of course it is - I have to provide these every time I take a boat to France.

You can provide evidence that you have not committed a crime? Wow!
Please explain how you do that.

Article 25 says necessary means .

Not for innocent vessels


Good God, talking about going round and round in circles, for ever and a day.
Most of your comments are based on your misinterpretation of the rules.

 

[motorbiking]

Thay have the right to, but a) it's not an obligation to, b) It would still be 'courteous to request permission, c) permission can be and has been withheld in Greece. (but probably illegally).

finally got there

If a vessel is in distress the circumstances or status of the passengers is irrelevant.

correct - if its in French waters off to France it goes

It is illegal, that is why there has been no pushbacks, and some border force operatives have refused to engage in such activities.

It's politically risky, that is why nobody has done it. yet

If the actions of the 'border force' have created the distress for the migrants boat, that is another breach of international law.

No the Illegals have set off in an overloaded, unsafe vessel, without any safety equipment that barely floats. The act of turning them around makes no difference.

Yes, it's either in distress or it's not.
On passage - it's an innocent vessel and should not be interfered with.
In distress - they must be rescued and there is an obligation for the French to allow the passengers to disembark. But it's reasonable and courteous for the rescuers to request permission, and there is no obligation on the rescuer to land them in France.

on passenge contrary to Article 19 - not innocent.
In distress - France has no power to stop the disembarkation. we agree

How is this relevant?

Aren't law breakers meant to be prosecuted by.. oh I dunno.. the police?

Legally it gives exemption from illegal entry if asylum is claimed immediately.
There are no other crimes that I can think of that asylum provides exemption.

there are, but we wouldn't expect you to know about them. There is plenty of case law

You can provide evidence that you have not committed a crime? Wow!
Please explain how you do that.

How would a ferry go about its business if it cannot prove its complied with the law and therefore not acting illegally?

We can easily tell the boats are not compliant.

Not for innocent vessels

not innocent vessels. Article 19, remember

Good God, talking about going round and round in circles, for ever and a day.
Most of your comments are based on your misinterpretation of the rules.

its your opinion that its a misinterpretation. You'll be able to say where and how... or not.

 

[Notch7]

they don't need permission

Yes they do

Permission is required if it not innocent passage.

Sailing into French waters to pick up migrants and take them to French port is not innocent passage.



You have been proven wrong it’s time you stopped flogging that dead horse

 

[Deleted member 323070]

finally got there

I've never suggested anything different.

correct - if its in French waters off to France it goes

See my previous clarification:

Thay have the right to, but a) it's not an obligation to, b) It would still be 'courteous to request permission, c) permission can be and has been withheld in Greece. (but probably illegally).

In other words they have a choice, and the RNLI does not routinely rescue people in distress in French waters, and if they do they are under no obligation to land them in France, except at the request of, and with the cooperation of the French.

It's politically risky, that is why nobody has done it. yet

It is both politically and legally risky. There have been some prosecutions in Greece.

No the Illegals have set off in an overloaded, unsafe vessel, without any safety equipment that barely floats.

I've already quoted the relevant passage of SOLAS that states the condition of the boat, and the circumstances in which they departed are irrelevant. They are in distress at that moment in time and their status or political circumstances are irrelevant.

The act of turning them around makes no difference.

It further endangers their lives, that is why it is contrary to the ECHR.

on passenge contrary to Article 19 - not innocent.

An inflatable boat full of unarmed migrants seeking asylum cannot be deemed as "not innocent".

In distress - France has no power to stop the disembarkation. we agree

Should the rescuers decided to land them in France, yes, but there is no obligation on the rescuers to land them in France, irrespective of where they were rescued.
And if a vessel has rescued survivors, it would be courteous to request permission to land those survivors.

Aren't law breakers meant to be prosecuted by.. oh I dunno.. the police?

How is it relevant to this discussion.? Seeking asylum is not illegal, and there is no crime committed.

there are, but we wouldn't expect you to know about them. There is plenty of case law

Then list the crimes that you claim asking for asylum provides immunity..

How would a ferry go about its business if it cannot prove its complied with the law and therefore not acting illegally?

Asylum seekers aren't currently using ferries.
If they committed a crime, the onus would be on the prosecution to prove the guilt. it isn't on the accused to prove their innocence.

We can easily tell the boats are not compliant.

It's irrelevant. We have already quoted the relevant SOLAS comments about the condition of the boast or the status of those in distress.
You are just wasting my time now.

not innocent vessels. Article 19, remember

A boat full of unarmed asylum seekers cannot be deemed "not innocent". We've dealt with this earlier in this discussion.
You're wasting my time and playing stupid.

You'll be able to say where and how... or not.

I just did, Did you not read it?

Most of your comments are based on your misinterpretation of the rules.

 

[motorbiking]

Yes they do

Permission is required if it not innocent passage.

Sailing into French waters to pick up migrants and take them to French port is not innocent passage.



You have been proven wrong it’s time you stopped flogging that dead horse

Since you have been provided with a detailed explanation all the legal text, its fairly obvious that you are dishonestly failing to understand.

If the migrants in French waters are in distress - SOLAS reg 33 applies. If the Migrants are not in distress and heading for UK territorial waters UNCLOS 19 and 25 apply, they can be prevented from entering.

 

[Notch7]

No notch you are either deliberately or otherwise failing to understand.

I do fully understand: you are trying to prove something that is not true.

Borderforce, the navy or G4S or whoever is tasked with the pushback has the job of preventing the vessel on passage from entering UK territorial waters. it is that simple. Keep them out of UK territorial waters. They then have several options:

1) turn around - great
2) try to out manoeuvre the pushback - no chance
3) request assistance as a vessel in distress. - SOLAS Reg 33 applies - the nearest vessel can take them back to France as the closest port.

“Borderforce, the navy or G4S or whoever is tasked with the pushback has the job of preventing the vessel on passage from entering UK territorial waters. it is that simple”

We’ve been through this, it doesn’t matter how keep re presenting it……if a boat is deemed in distress, they have a duty to rescue, ruling out a pushback


“ it is that simple”
Well it clearly is not, Priti Patel tried to putting express powers enabling pushbacks in her borders and nationalities bill but had to drop it as it was clear judicial review would Chuck it out.

Border force agents said they wouldn’t do it as they couldn’t be sure they would not get arrested and tried

The Navy also said they weren’t interested in getting involved.


So no, it’s not that simple

 

[motorbiking]

I've never suggested anything different.


See my previous clarification:

In other words they have a choice, and the RNLI does not routinely rescue people in distress in French waters, and if they do they are under no obligation to land them in France, except at the request of, and with the cooperation of the French.


It is both politically and legally risky. There have been some prosecutions in Greece.



I've already quoted the relevant passage of SOLAS that states the condition of the boat, and the circumstances in which they departed are irrelevant. They are in distress at that moment in time and their status or political circumstances are irrelevant.



It further endangers their lives, that is why it is contrary to the ECHR.


An inflatable boat full of unarmed migrants seeking asylum cannot be deemed as "not innocent".


Should the rescuers decided to land them in France, yes, but there is no obligation on the rescuers to land them in France, irrespective of where they were rescued.
And if a vessel has rescued survivors, it would be courteous to request permission to land those survivors.


How is it relevant to this discussion.? Seeking asylum is not illegal, and there is no crime committed.


Then list the crimes that you claim asking for asylum provides immunity..


Asylum seekers aren't currently using ferries.
If they committed a crime, the onus would be on the prosecution to prove the guilt. it isn't on the accused to prove their innocence.


It's irrelevant. We have already quoted the relevant SOLAS comments about the condition of the boast or the status of those in distress.
You are just wasting my time now.


A boat full of unarmed asylum seekers cannot be deemed "not innocent". We've dealt with this earlier in this discussion.
You're wasting my time and playing stupid.


I just did, Did you not read it?

No point in breaking this out. Your argument can be summarised as:
Asylum seekers on a boat heading for the UK is innocent passage. This is contrary to Article 19. They are also not asylum seekers until they claim asylum. You will see numerous prosecutions of people entering the UK illegally who do not claim asylum getting prosecuted for their crimes.
The laws that prevent the UK from dumping Asylum seekers on France (i.e. take back) don't apply to the traffickers and their boats. There is no such basis.

I do fully understand: you are trying to prove something that is not true.




“Borderforce, the navy or G4S or whoever is tasked with the pushback has the job of preventing the vessel on passage from entering UK territorial waters. it is that simple”

We’ve been through this, it doesn’t matter how keep re presenting it……if a boat is deemed in distress, they have a duty to rescue, ruling out a pushback

There is no right under any maritime convention to "deem" a vessel in distress and enforce a rescue against the occupants will.

“ it is that simple”
Well it clearly is not, Priti Patel tried to putting express powers enabling pushbacks in her borders and nationalities bill but had to drop it as it was clear judicial review would Chuck it out.

Border force agents said they wouldn’t do it as they couldn’t be sure they would not get arrested and tried

The Navy also said they weren’t interested in getting involved.


So no, it’s not that simple

You are arguing that SOLAS says the vessel is in distress because of its condition - it's not worded like that. A vessel issues a call: a mayday or the master of the ship assesses that there is a Grave and imminent danger to life or the vessel. He cannot board them or force a rescue upon them if they do not want assistance. Otherwise the French authorities would pull every single one out of the water, to avoid loss of life.

My only argument is that is can be done legally, not that there are willing volunteers. Though I am sure plenty would submit bids.

 

[Notch7]

correct - However, their legal status as a vessel is binary:
- on passage - Article 19, 25 of UNCLOS applies - they can be pushed back
- in distress - they can be taken to the nearest port without authorisation from the port.

British vessels can’t enter French waters with intent of picking up migrants and returning them to France….that’s not innocent passage.

Article 19 applies


A push back is only possible if the boat is not in distress…..and the action of pushing back a boat overloaded ith people may well be defined as a boat in distress, a point you wilfully avoid addressing

 

[motorbiking]

British vessels can’t enter French waters with intent of picking up migrants and returning them to France….that’s not innocent passage.

Article 19 applies


A push back is only possible if the boat is not in distress…..and the action of pushing back a boat overloaded ith people may well be defined as a boat in distress, a point you wilfully avoid addressing

Nobody has said anyone is going the enter French waters and pick them up and take them back to France under UNCLOS.

A vessel that is overloaded unsafe, is not in distress unless it issues a call and cannot be boarded under solas Reg 33 if it refuses assistance. The rules are different for people in the water.