Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[Deleted member 323070]

Yes I will soon be in a tin bath crossing the Atlantic.

You'll be safe enough.

It'll all be imaginary.

 

[MNW67]

A stalemate can occur when the interpretation is ambiguous.

My point is that it is pretty clear that nobody is going to change their minds on the issue of the legality of push backs etc. So, why don't you just all agree to start another thread, specifically about this particular issue. Then you can have another hundred pages saying exactly the same things, and you won't disrupt everyone else who wants to discuss Reform policies on this thread. You might of course say, why not start another thread to discuss Reform. But I know, from experience, that will get very confusing and people will post on both threads. And we will still have to sift through a hundred plus posts repeating exactly the same arguments about crossings, in order to find a single new post which is actually about Reform.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Scenario 1, is correct.
scenario 2, stop them entering British waters. They are not legally registered nor has their passage been logged.

These conventions further stipulate that those picked up at sea are not allowed to be taken to any other country other than that of the flag of the ship which rescued them. The only exception to this rule is when there is clear permission to take those rescued to another country, such as France.

In the example of the UK, this would mean that after each interception, British boats would have to bring the people they saved at sea back to Britain -- or contact French authorities to request returning the migrants there in every single instance.

If, on the other hand, a French patrol boat intercepts migrants on a dinghy, they are equally bound by law to take them back to France -- unless they have good reason to contact British authorities and request that they take them over.
In fact, the French government strongly protested against a British proposition in 2021 of using the British Navy to force migrant boats to turn around in the English Channel and head back in the direction of France.

France stressed at the time this suggestion, which had been floated by one of the previous UK governments under the leadership of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, would be in direct breach of the aforementioned stipulations of international maritime law.

Since Britain's departure from the European Union (Brexit) in 2020, any major cooperation or rapprochement on immigration issues between the UK and France appears to be a somewhat elusive idea. The two nations have signed agreements to work together to stop boats from leaving in the first place, but if they're in the open sea, these deals no longer apply.

So sending migrants back to France at sea is simply not a concept that would ever be allowed under international law.

Channel crossings: Why Britain cannot simply send back migrants

Anti-immigrant sentiments often demand that foreigners be "sent back to where they came from," especially in the run-up to elections. In the UK, in particular, migration and border control have been contentious issues for years, since the country's departure from the European Union was based on...

www.infomigrants.net

My apologies to the dullards who don't have the capacity to read all of this. I can't really condense it down any further.

If you're having real difficulty understanding it, ask an adult.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

My point is that it is pretty clear that nobody is going to change their minds on the issue of the legality of push backs etc. So, why don't you just all agree to start another thread, specifically about this particular issue. Then you can have another hundred pages saying exactly the same things, and you won't disrupt everyone else who wants to discuss Reform policies on this thread. You might of course say, why not start another thread to discuss Reform. But I know, from experience, that will get very confusing and people will post on both threads. And we will still have to sift through a hundred plus posts repeating exactly the same arguments about crossings, in order to find a single new post which is actually about Reform.

Why not advise mbk to stop pushing his incorrect and downright dangerous, maniacal misinterpretations. Then we can all rest easy.

And advise the other halfwits to not practise blind obedience, and do their own research.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Scenario 1 let’s say it’s correct (it’s not) what percentage does that cover


So what

a pushback on an unseaworthy, overloaded boat would put it in distress, so the British boat would have to rescue……and it’s nonsense to claim that France would allow migrants back in France rescued right on the maritime border….especially given that the pushback caused the distress.

It’s just bolox

Correction. It's just mbk's warped and twisted political ideology getting the better of him, and leading the dullards astray.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

You would not be putting the craft in distress by pushing or blocking its route forward.

You cannot legally interfere with another vessel, especially to endanger the occupants, without their permission.

General Rule: Respect for Freedom of Navigation

• The principle of freedom of navigation means that ships can generally sail on the high seas without undue interference from other states.
• Interference is generally considered illegal unless specifically permitted by international law.

Vessels have a right to safe passage, and any interference that puts their safety at risk is generally unlawful.

COLREG - Preventing collisions at sea

www.imo.org

I advise you to find another teacher, someone more aware and experienced.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Not if you stay alongside of it or within reach of it at a safe distance until the frogs arrive

You cannot legally interfere with another vessel, especially to endanger the occupants, without their permission.

COLREG - Preventing collisions at sea

www.imo.org

I advise you to find another teacher, someone more aware and experienced.

 

[Notch7]

He's right. The simple fact that you, Tom and Coco the clown disagree with him confirms he's right.

Fillyboy says “ooohhh I gotta support Motorbikings lies because he is on my team”

 

[Deleted member 323070]

A passage is deemed "not innocent" (e.g., breaching immigration laws), states can take necessary steps to prevent it from entering territorial waters.

Refugees are protected from prosecution if they intend to claim asylum under the UN Charter.

Have you not been reading any of the presented supporting evidence?
Or have you just ignored it all?

I bet you tried the patience of your tutors on your degree course.

Tutor, "What does book 1 say, Dick?"
Dick, "Don't know, Sir, I haven't read it?
Tutor, "Did you not read the prerequisites for this course, Dick?"
Dick, "Prerequisites? What are they, Sir?"
Tutor, "How come you're on this course, Dick?"
Dick, "Don't know, Sir, the Army sent me."

 

[Deleted member 323070]

No, if a craft is seaworthy and these inflatables that they use are. It is perfectly acceptable to push back without causing harm and no rescue is necessary

You cannot legally interfere with another vessel, especially to endanger the occupants, without their permission.

COLREG - Preventing collisions at sea

www.imo.org

I advise you to find another teacher, someone more aware and experienced.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Foreign vessels generally have the right of innocent passage through a state's territorial sea (up to 12 nautical miles from shore), You wouldn't want to push these back in any case, a not innocent passage then yes you can providing that the vessel is seaworthy.

What would make it 'not innocent'?
Hint: The conditions are clearly written in UNCLOS.

 

[Notch7]

No, if a craft is seaworthy and these inflatables that they use are

Evidence says they arent

It is perfectly acceptable to push back without causing harm

blocking a small inflatable in the English Channel increases it’s time in the water at its furthest point from land.

That increases risk

 

[Notch7]

They cannot simply say they are in distress when it is evident that they are not

How is it evident they are not

You’ve seen the picture of how many people are on one of these inflatables.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

They cannot simply say they are in distress when it is evident that they are not. You wouldn't fool the fire brigade by screaming fire in your house when there isn't one could you?

As a newly qualified expert, perhaps you should join the discussion.

In the August 2017 edition of LIFE LINE (see the newsletter archive) we asked “What is ‘distress’?”

SAR Matters: Defining Distress Continued ...

People known to be in distress need to be rescued, of course – and the SAR community knows that this concept must also be extended to those believed to be in distress, and to those who, while not yet in distress, will become so if help is not provided to them in the meantime.

www.international-maritime-rescue.org

 

[Notch7]

My point is that it is pretty clear that nobody is going to change their minds on the issue of the legality of push backs etc. So, why don't you just all agree to start another thread, specifically about this particular issue. Then you can have another hundred pages saying exactly the same things, and you won't disrupt everyone else who wants to discuss Reform policies on this thread. You might of course say, why not start another thread to discuss Reform. But I know, from experience, that will get very confusing and people will post on both threads. And we will still have to sift through a hundred plus posts repeating exactly the same arguments about crossings, in order to find a single new post which is actually about Reform.

All you have to do is tell Motorbiking to stop lying and we will stop.

I don’t see why he should get away with endless lies.

His scenarios are ridiculous and unworkable and not a solution…..So tell Motorbiking to have some courage and admit that