Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[Deleted member 323070]

all these arguments have already been dealt with.

Umpteen time, but you keep presenting the same old tired arguments again, and again, and again.

- illegal immigrants heading from France to UK on a boat is not innocent passage.

They're not illegal until they arrive. Therefore they are innocent.

- they are not asylum seekers until they claim asylum

So they can't be illegal immigrants neither.

and there are many laws being broken in French territorial waters -

Probably a few misdemeanours. yes.

Its up to the French if they ignore them.

They don't if they can catch them.

- The illegals travel at approximately 5-6kts. An intercept vessel can maned 50-70kts. They have time to finish their dinner and still intercept them at the border.

Then what they gonna do when they get there?

and of course they don't have to intercept every single one.

Wow I bet the UK and the French have never thought of that one.
It doesn't seem to work if it's anything like the Rwanda disincentive.

Just make it more likely the attempt will fail and increase the cost for the smugglers (better, faster boats, etc).

Or look for another avenue, which will probably be even more risky or expensive.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Even if requested by a Rescue Co-ordination Centre (RCC) or other shore officials, the Master has no authority, obligation or responsibility for listening to, acting upon or communicating information concerning the legal status of rescued persons or applications for asylum. The Master has no responsibility for determining the status of those rescued.

But once disembarked, assuming no urgent medical attention is required, immigration formalities will apply to the passengers who intend to remain in France.

 

[motorbiking]

But once disembarked, assuming no urgent medical attention is required, immigration formalities will apply to the passengers who intend to remain in France.

yep but the rescue vessel is free to leave without them. Remember the master of the ship is under no obligation to take them where they want to go. He's not operating a taxi

 

[Deleted member 323070]

proving?

Your persistent claim that pushbacks are legal.
They're not, nor are they morally acceptable, otherwise I suspect the Tory government would have gone ahead with them, if the services personnel had agreed.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

you didn't notice the date of the two entirely separate incidents?

I couldn't access the Mail one, and I had no inclination to try.
I relied on your presentation.

 

[denso13]

Why then?

Perhaps family here, or they can speak some English. Various reasons.

Remember that the majority of boat people who are processed are allowed to remain, they are genuine refugees. All the nonsense about shooting boats also affects people who need our help. We should be treating people humanely, as a minimum.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

you don't think that might be because when a boat moves at speed, the bow isn't in the water?

Depends on the boat. Not all boats achieve planing.

Maybe you should advise people that bow thrusters are a waste of time, because its better to steer from the stern.

Bow thrusters are more efficient and better protected than a steering mechanism at the bow.

In addition the rear moves in an opposite direction than the front, Steering from the rear has always allowed sighting of both bow and stern.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

why would pushing the bow damage it?

It would cause the inflatable to collapse at the weakest point, probably in the middle where the most weight is.
I thought you were sailor. It seems to have destroyed any semblance of physics that you might have had,

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Border force don’t know if they are innocent passage, illegal immigrants or asylum seekers.

They're neither until they reach UK.

To find out they would have to speak to them, at which point the people can say “I claim asylum”, if they speak good English they might even say Please.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I wonder if they might call it a drone.

Naah! Drone is what you're doing.
On and on and on.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Think of children

In the first person, or second or third person?

 

[Deleted member 323070]

yep but the rescue vessel is free to leave without them. Remember the master of the ship is under no obligation to take them where they want to go. He's not operating a taxi

Depending on the verification of the rescue, and those rescued.

 

[Notch7]

https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/1979-International-Convention-on-Maritime-Search-and-Rescue-1.pdf

Its only 17 pages of detail on their obligations

Its 17 pages which do not say what you claim

You said "......says they must accept them" -but it doesnt does it?

Article 18, 24 and 98, UNCLOS plus SOLAS reg 33. says they must accept them.

it doesnt say that though

 

[Notch7]

yep but the rescue vessel is free to leave without them.

not if its rescued them and they are on board the British vessel

Remember the master of the ship is under no obligation to take them where they want to go

well the vessel cant throw them overboard.

they need agreement from France to drop them there

so they are stuck with them


hang on where is the British border force vessel going back to...............

 

[motorbiking]

Its 17 pages which do not say what you claim

You said "......says they must accept them" -but it doesnt does it?


it doesnt say that though

what do you understand is meant by "Rescue" or having an obligation to provide "Search and Rescue". Did you Read Chapter 2. Its quite clear.