Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

Photo ID, usually a passport.
If there's any doubt, they would ask for a passport.

Also in booking you declare your citizenship.
If the response is not true, it might be a immigration offence, but you would lose your money and not be allowed to board.

Immigration offences? But surely they are asylum seekers. :LOL:
 
Nobody is talking about pushing back a vessel in distress. They can be legally rescued and taken to france. No need for any push back.
They can be legally rescued. Where thee are taken is entirely up to the rescuing vessel.
If they are in distress which was caused by the actions of a third party, there will be trouble ahead.
 
They can be legally rescued. Where thee are taken is entirely up to the rescuing vessel.
If they are in distress which was caused by the actions of a third party, there will be trouble ahead.
So if my job is to keep them out of the U.K. I wonder where I will take them ? :lol:
 
She abandoned it because it was about to get declared not legal by judicial review.

I’ve told you that
She knew the outcome of a judicial review on an international treaty before it had even been challenged. She must be a genius :lol:
 
The answer didn’t help him. :LOL:
Well apart from claiming my superior experience, which I'm not about to do, he'll have to make his own mind up, either from the information supplied, or by his own experience.
I suspect asylum seekers passports will have been flagged, so they will not be allowed to board.
Similarly, I suspect names will be checked against a database for asylum seekers, passport irregularities, criminals etc.

If you look OK, your ID may not be questioned, I've traveled through many passports controls pre-Brexit without an ID check, but I'm sure border guards ae pretty clued up at spotting fake ID's, etc

At the end of the day, if an asylum seeker attempts to travel without permission or with fake ID, their application will be affected.
Then it would all have been a waste of time and effort..
 
She knew the outcome of a judicial review on an international treaty before it had even been challenged. She must be a genius :LOL:
The Attorney General on holiday?
In the UK, the Attorney General is the chief legal advisor to the Crown and a key figure in the legal and government systems. They are responsible for providing legal advice to the government,
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
wrong again.
You are...

"...Article 19 of UNCLOS says that if a "foreign ship" enters another country's territorial waters it will "be considered to be prejudicial to the peace" if "it engages in the loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the immigration laws" of that country.

BBC Verify spoke to two experts in maritime law.

James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, told us: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".


Ainhoa Campàs Velasco, a maritime law expert from the University of Southampton, said migrants could not be returned to French shores, "unilaterally, and without prior agreement with France..."
 
So if my job is to keep them out of the U.K. I wonder where I will take them ?
A processing centre? I'm guessing once the rubber boats have entered our waters, an unless it's a (war footing) invasion, what choice do we have? We can't tow them back, or shoot holes in the boats or wave a blunderbuss at them (Fromage style).
 
Nobody is talking about pushing back a vessel in distress. They can be legally rescued and taken to france. No need for any push back.

Did you mention a rule earlier that if another country asks you to rescue a boat in their waters, they automatically have to let you land the people from that boat on their territory?
 
Back
Top