Conclusion of JCHR finds pushbacks are contrary to UK law and International maritime law

[MNW67]

'Strawman, rabbit holes, gaslighting'. What does this strange language mean?

The first two are very well known old expressions. Google will help explain them much better than I can.

Gaslighting is more difficult to get your head round. Even after Googling, I still don't really understand what that is. Right wingers seem to use this expression a lot.

 

[Notch7]

Tough. Do it first, and argue afterwards.

Explain the threats to life on the beach at Calais???
Distress - what distress?? It cannon feasibly be ALL distress. Distress due to nobody giving them money and the situation in which they put themselves??
Pulling them out of the water gets them out of distress.
Let people in Without Any Controls??? That can't be right - that's pretty obvious.

Plenty to argue about and while we're all doing that the illegals will get no money; it'll stop.

Break the trade..
Set up legal routes.
Control it.
Don't let criminals manipulate laws to justify their activity.

It's like "you have to let me shoot you because if you touch me before I pull the trigger that's assault."


Shame on the "Human Rights Joint Committee". Not fit for purpose
Stop respecting it.


What they say is LAW is it?? Under what statute??

I agree the whole is madness, but I see no solution on the horizon.

No country in Europe wants these displaced people settling in their country, they don’t care if they end up in any other country. But no country is interested in collaborating together to stop the smugglers because that would mean each agreeing quotas.

So what we have is each country trying to keep them out, the displaced people being ever squeezed to find more and more dangerous routes and no solution is found.


I guess the real solution would be to stop them entering into the EU via places like Lampedusa or from Turkey into a Greek islands.

One of Putins strategies to destabilise EU is to flood it with refugees, He has flown them into Belarus and of course there’s Ukraine and Syria.

 

[motorbiking]

Source of your "fact"

Government lawyers obviously agreed and back down.

Priti Patel tried making pushbacks legal and suddenly changed her mind when govt lawyers realised they couldn’t.

I suspect she was worried about the bad optics.

 

[motorbiking]

No, they made recommendations for the possibility of reducing the risk faced by small boat crossings.
They didn't refer to any existing laws, and they didn't suggest the introduction of any new laws.
Any new laws would be for France to enact. It says so very clearly. I've highlighted the relevant bits.


It's your misinterpretation that is incorrect. again.
You demonstrate your duplicity with every post you make these days.

Yes they wrote a report, notch thinks it has legal precedent. It doesn’t

 

[motorbiking]

Please avoid strawman arguments, even those stated explicitly as you’ve done here.

It’s simply a fact that the report and conclusions of the committee has no legal impact. It’s not a judicial review.

 

[motorbiking]

Push backs are illegal
Motorbiking is wrong
It is a settled matter.

According to you.

But since there was no judicial review, no court ruling, it remains open to a future government to explore.

 

[Notch7]

Source of your "fact"
I suspect she was worried about the bad optics.

bad optics of having it thrown out in court

 

[Notch7]

Yes they wrote a report, notch thinks it has legal precedent. It doesn’t

Strawman

I never thought it, never expressed it.

It simply states the laws that currently exist.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

.

 

[Notch7]

According to you.

But since there was no judicial review, no court ruling, it remains open to a future government to explore.

Thank you for admitting that as the law currently stands pushbacks of migrant boats in the channel is illegal.

Despite you claiming for 80 pages otherwise.


it is obvious the Conservative govt knew it was going to lose against the judicial review so it abandoned it.

 

[Justin Passing]

Break international law, and argue about it afterwards?
It's a good job we have courts that can issue injunctions.
Then all the work gone into getting ready to break the law is wasted money - tax payers wasted money.


Who said there were any?
Well the tide can come in pretty fast.


WTF are you on about?


I think you've got it.


Yes very silly wasn't it. So why did the Tories stop processing small boat arrivals?
No need to answer because there isn't a sensible answer.


How will they eat? Wash, shave, brush their teeth, deal with other personal issues?


How? I assume you mean the market model?
Easy. Provide safe, secure and accessible means of claiming asylum.



Exactly.


Exactly


Exactly.

You talking to Highway Man, 'cos he'll shoot you on sight.


Because they're protecting Human Rights abuses. That's their job.


Stop respecting Human Rights?
You must be a Reform supporter.


What you on about?

Oh you ARE Pat-ex et al.
just a silly troll posting garbage.
You get answered
You ignore
pant straw men
and repeat.
Childish.

 

[Justin Passing]

.

 

[Justin Passing]

I agree the whole is madness, but I see no solution on the horizon.

The law is inadequate. It was never intended to support unsafe little boat crossings.
If necessary, we can say we don't respect the court .
It does not present an alternative to this appaling practice so it deserves no respect.

Does anyone, anywhere, maintain that wannabe migrants crossing the channel having paid unscrupulous criminal gangs is a good thing, all fine and dandy??
Even Pat Ex isn't that dumb. Don't feed the troll

The answer is most likely to be
"NO, BUT...."
Right, well deal with the NO part.
Now.

Nobody governs by criticism.

 

[noseall]

The law is inadequate. It was never intended to support unsafe little boat crossings.
If necessary, we can say we don't respect the court .
It does not present an alternative to this appaling practice so it deserves no respect.

Does anyone, anywhere, maintain that wannabe migrants crossing the channel having paid unscrupulous criminal gangs is a good thing, all fine and dandy??
Even Pat Ex isn't that dumb. Don't feed the troll

The answer is most likely to be
"NO, BUT...."
Right, well deal with the NO part.
Now.

Nobody governs by criticism.

It's a good job it's just a discussion forum then isn't it.

Lying about it is not helping either.