Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[Deleted member 323070]

Listen to MBK on this subject, he knows his stuff, Tom tit will just be googling it as per usual and getting it wrong.

Do you have any positive contribution to make.
Or are you intent on standing on the sideline throwing in random insults because that is all you're capable of?

 

[Deleted member 323070]

yes nearest port. Idiot

Not necessarily, Dick.
Tides, sea conditions and wind has a bearing when at sea, and thus speed of passage.
You'd be wise to remember that.

 

[MNW67]

Good God! what if it was inches outside UK waters?
What if it was half in and half out?

Neither the French nor the British would want the embarrassment of refusing medical attention to a rescued seafarer.

The status and the circumstance of how they came to be there is irrelevant. They would be treated with the utmost speed and care, whichever and however that was at the time and in the place they were when they were rescued.

The resuers are there for one reason, and one reason only : to save lives.
They're not interested in getting into a diplomatic nor legal argument in the activity for which they volunteer.

There is no point getting shouty and flustered.

The best way to deal with legal questions is calmly, rationally and methodically. Now, I have just found this. Does it help at all:

22 Asylum seekers who are rescued at sea are not entitled to disembark at the nearest port or at the port of their destination. Indeed, the IMO Rescue Guidelines, SOLAS, and the SAR Convention treat disembarkation in general as an obligation of conduct rather than of result. What is contemplated is that States—eg nearby port States, the flag State of the vessel that rescued asylum seekers, the State from which asylum seekers departed, and the State primarily responsible for the search and rescue region in which the rescue occurred—will coordinate and cooperate, perhaps in association with the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for [UNHCR]), to find a suitable place for disembarkation. Article 10 (1) EU FRONTEX Regulation does, however, establish disembarkation mandates for ships under the responsibility of an EU Member State that are engaged in maritime border surveillance and that rescue persons in distress at sea.

Ships in Distress

"Ships in Distress" published on by Oxford University Press.

opil.ouplaw.com

 

[Highway Man]

Not necessarily, Dick.
Tides, sea conditions and wind has a bearing when at sea, and thus speed of passage.
You'd be wise to remember that.

then the nearest port that your boat can sail to then

 

[Deleted member 323070]

There is no point getting shouty and flustered.

Sorry but when people make up specific imaginary scenarios in order to avoid the obvious, and it's irrelevant anyway, it becones tiresome

For emergency medical care, the most expeditious voyage is chosen, irrespective of regulations.
No sensible European country wants to get involved and embarrassed by refusing to accept rescued seafarers, or for refusing them medical care.

The best way to deal with legal questions is calmly, rationally and methodically.

Your questions were getting increasingly ridiculous, when it is irrelevant because in reality when urgent medical care or urgent rescue is required.
The legal questions are purely theoretical.

Now, I have just found this. Does it help at all:

Ships in Distress

"Ships in Distress" published on by Oxford University Press.

opil.ouplaw.com

will coordinate and cooperate

Is exactly what I was saying.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

then the nearest port that your boat can sail to then

It's not about the nearest.
I thought I had explained that.

 

[Highway Man]

It's not about the nearest.
I thought I had explained that.

Oh sorry I thought I had told you, I don't read your replies. I will take a look but doubt I will believe it

 

[MNW67]

The legal questions are purely theoretical.

You seem to be far too emotionally invested to discuss this properly with the required level of detachment.

 

[motorbiking]

It would depend on the degree of urgency of the required medical attention required, in relation to the speed with which medical attention can be administered.
The captain of the rescue boat would make the decision.
If he was sufficently closer to the French port, he would liaise with the French and out of courtesy ask for permission, and advice.

If he was refused, he would have to use a UK port and sort out the problem later rather than waste time which would impact on the speed with which medical attention was administered.
It would become an argument up at diplomatic level.
Neither UK nor France would want the embarrasment of refusing to accept a rescued person needing urgent medical attention.

So the discussion is pointless.

Nonsense.

 

[Highway Man]

You seem to be far too emotionally invested to discuss this properly with the required level of detachment.

I told you, take no notice of what he says, look at MBK reply. Take that as gospel.

 

[Notch7]

yes nearest port. Idiot

Not true

 

[Highway Man]

Not true

near as dammit

 

[motorbiking]

Not necessarily, Dick.
Tides, sea conditions and wind has a bearing when at sea, and thus speed of passage.
You'd be wise to remember that.

For a sailing boat yes. But it makes the square root of not much difference on a vessel that cruises at 20+ kts. Last I checked the tide only goes North or south for about half an hour each turn and with not much force. It’s mainly going east or west. Nice try though.

 

[Highway Man]

Not true

well if you apply logic to this it would go something like this. You are sinking and need to get. to a port for safety. there are two ports, one is 30 miles away the other is 10. Which one are you going to head for?

 

[motorbiking]

There is no point getting shouty and flustered.

The best way to deal with legal questions is calmly, rationally and methodically. Now, I have just found this. Does it help at all:

Ships in Distress

"Ships in Distress" published on by Oxford University Press.

opil.ouplaw.com

Yes it’s correct that EU states have additional obligations.