Omicron variant caught a cold

[Notch7]

You're moving your argument.
You originally claimed that a UK lifeboat entered French waters to effect a rescue.
Now you've modified that to imply that a UK life boat was launched from rest to effect a rescue in French waters.

It doesn't matter because it doesn't dissolve the argument that the nearest vessel is expected to effect a rescue, especially if that vessel is also the most appropriate, in the circumstances. The fact that it is at rest is immaterial, if it is the nearest available and the most appropriate vessel to effect that rescue.
An argument that there is potentially another appropriate French vessel nearer is nonsense unless you can show that the other vessel was also available at the time.

You've provided nothing so far other than empty and pointless arguments based on your supposition and political ideology.

are you conflating facts with ethical / moral decisions?

if RNLI have done what are effectively taxi missions, then thats a fact

whether its their moral duty that is another matter

 

[AngleEyes]

are you conflating facts with ethical / moral decisions?

if RNLI have done what are effectively taxi missions, then thats a fact

whether its their moral duty that is another matter

You're basing your comments on the same rumours that motorbiking was peddling.
IF the RNLI have done what was claimed, then they are acting within their moral and ethical remit and rescuing people at sea in distress. The particular reason for the victims being there is immaterial. The RNLI do mot make moral or political judgements on whether to rescue people in distress.
They are, quite rightly, above such concerns.

 

[motorbiking]

I repeat what I said earlier, lifeboats are not only allowed to operate in other country's waters to effect a rescue, they are legally obliged to do so.

So this is wrong then? It’s a moral ethical obligation, not a legal one. Who sets that obligation? Do you think donors might find it confusing that the Royal NATIONAL lifeboat institute, thought their remit was International? How far does that extend? 30Nm, 50Nm, 100Nm, should they launch to perform SARs in French waters at the risk of not being available to assist vessels closer to home? Is a 4 hour round trip justified, when there was a SARs vessel 15 minutes away?

Or should it depend on if another available vessel capable of SARs, is closer? Could it be more to do with the fact that the RNLI operates on free basis while the French equivalent charges fees/salvage (as do most rescue services elsewhere).

 

[AngleEyes]

So this is wrong then? It’s a moral ethical obligation, not a legal one. Who sets that obligation?

Yes, you're right. A poor choice of words by me.
I should have clarified that it isn't a legal obligation on the RNLI to operate in international waters. There is a moral and ethical obligation to assist victims at sea in distress.
I don't suppose that even all shipping have a legal obligation to come to another vessel in distress. However if they failed to do so, I suspect that there is some legal requirement under which they could be charged.
Wasn't the nearest vessel to the Titanic under some sort of legal charge for not assisting when required to do so?

Do you think donors might find it confusing that the Royal NATIONAL lifeboat institute, thought their remit was International? How far does that extend? 30Nm, 50Nm, 100Nm, should they launch to perform SARs in French waters at the risk of not being available to assist vessels closer to home?

I suspect the donors are concerned with the RNLI fulfilling their moral and ethical calling whatever the circumstances of the victims, and outside of any influence from any political ideology.

Is a 4 hour round trip justified, when there was a SARs vessel 15 minutes away?
Or should it depend on if another available vessel capable of SARs, is closer? Could it be more to do with the fact that the RNLI operates on free basis while the French equivalent charges fees/salvage (as do most rescue services elsewhere).

You're persisting with peddling your unfounded rumours. And you're basing your comments on your unfounded rumours.
Until you present some evidence to support your unfounded rumours, they remain unfounded rumours, on which you are speculating your hypothetical arguments.

 

[motorbiking]

No. I have the data, as it’s possible to keep AIS logs on a vessel recorded for collision avoidance on a chart plotter. What I find odd is you don’t, but assume someone is peddling rumours without any evidence to discredit their claim.

I don't suppose that even all shipping have a legal obligation to come to another vessel in distress. However if they failed to do so, I suspect that there is some legal requirement under which they could be charged.
Wasn't the nearest vessel to the Titanic under some sort of legal charge for not assisting when required to do so?

wrong again. The obligation is upon the master of a vessel at sea. That’s pretty much everyone, noting that not everyone is a master and not every water craft is a vessel. So all ships have a legal obligation to assist or note in the ships log (a legal document) why they could not.

You might also find this interesting: From the RNLI charter…

4 The work of the Institution shall be primarily but not exclusively carried out in and around the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland.

So you can empathise with the feelings of some donors and volunteers, that they should not be operating a so call “migrant taxi service”.

 

[AngleEyes]

No. I have the data, as it’s possible to keep AIS logs on a vessel recorded for collision avoidance on a chart plotter. What I find odd is you don’t, but assume someone is peddling rumours without any evidence to discredit their claim.

But you've never presented these logs to support your argument. The assumption is obvious, you can't because you don't have them. You promoted your rumours on unsubstantiated gossip.
I don't need to disprove unfounded rumours. If they weren't rumours there would be proof out there in the public domain.

wrong again. The obligation is upon the master of a vessel at sea. That’s pretty much everyone, noting that not everyone is a master and not every water craft is a vessel. So all ships have a legal obligation to assist or note in the ships log (a legal document) why they could not.

Irrelevant and pedantic details.

You might also find this interesting: From the RNLI charter…

4 The work of the Institution shall be primarily but not exclusively carried out in and around the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland.

Precisely, but not exclusively in and around the UK.

So you can empathise with the feelings of some donors and volunteers, that they should not be operating a so call “migrant taxi service”.

Your rumour mill working overtime again? Describing the RNLI as a "migrant taxi service".
Your political ideology screams loud and clear.
You're even prepared to promote unfounded rumours based on your political ideology.

 

[JP_]

Now at 12 Omicron deaths.

Or 0 deaths, if you think the media and doctors are lying.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

Now at 12 Omicron deaths.

Or 0 deaths, if you think the media and doctors are lying.

with or from? Not looking for a dispute, just wondering.

 

[JP_]

with or from? Not looking for a dispute, just wondering.

Ask Ellal.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

Ask Ellal.

Had a brief look. deaths ‘related’ to the Omicold. So sounds like it could be 1 FROM . Which lets face it is the only relevant statistic.

 

[denso13]

with or from? Not looking for a dispute, just wondering.

Done to death on here. But you don't believe the data anyway, you are simply trolling.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

Done to death on here. But you don't believe the data anyway, you are simply trolling.

Any answer that supports blatant exaggeration of the situation is trolling in your view.
You could finally address the ‘of’ ‘from’ question and it’s glaringly obvious manipulative intent instead of dismissing it.

 

[denso13]

Any answer that supports blatant exaggeration

Your answers don't support anything, provide proof or evidence for what you say. But you can't, because you don't believe any data.

You saying something means nothing, same for me, it is just opinion if you provide no back up.

 

[denso13]

You could finally address the ‘of’ ‘from’ question and it’s glaringly obvious manipulative intent instead of dismissing it.

The "of" or "with" comes directly from death certificates which are certified by doctors to the best of their knowledge. Now, you either believe that they are doing that or you believe they are lying. Some on here think they are just doing what they are told, which equates to lying.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

The "of" or "with" comes directly from death certificates which are certified by doctors to the best of their knowledge. Now, you either believe that they are doing that or you believe they are lying. Some on here think they are just doing what they are told, which equates to lying.

Deliberate lying in completing a death cert would be a very serious crime, to suggest that many doctors are doing this is absolutely ridiculous.