Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

certainly seems to be happening with the current government.
'Tis such a shame that votes are not what counts, it's seats and turnout. :rolleyes:
The last election percentages were as:

1748524767260.png

And the prediction is
1748524904290.png


So Labour are 21%, and Reform on 29%. But who in their right mind gives Reform a half a chance at government in the next election? :ROFLMAO:
So at the last election, the result was 10% more for Labour, but Reform are only 8% above Labour, and there's no scrutiny of which constituencies.

Then there's turn-out.
It's fine stopping people in the street and asking them what their voting preference will be. But how many will actually go to the polls, and how many will change their mind before they get there? :rolleyes:
 
well he got more left wing votes

he didnt get more swing voters to vote for him -thats what wins elections

personally I think had Corbyn just limited his left wing policies like nationalisation to just water, he might have won
He didn’t personally appeal enough to enough Northern voters
when you use the phrase "different economic thinking" you mean tell the public they will be better off whilst actually having polices which will mke ordinary voters worse off
I mean people, like Highest Man, who seem to vote for personality rather than policies. Brexhit and Trump are two examples of how the feel good factor is important to people.
 
Do you think anyone is actually taking any notice of your ramblings over this. We all listen to MBK and accept his explanation of the laws and rules, only a few trolls are going against what he knows which quite frankly is a bit cringe to try to argue against it.
I was going to analyse your post and respond to seperate parts of it, but I've changed my mind.

I'll just laugh at all of it. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
It doesn’t really matter how accurate it is, if a boat right on the maritime border becomes in need of rescuing, and so the migrants get put on the U.K. Border force boat, if they ring up France and say “you need to collect them” France will say “Up yours”
after all this discussion you still don't understand SOLAS and the SARs convention.
Anyway it requires the actual maritime boundary to be defined so there’s another level of inaccuracy.
They've done it already.
 
'Tis such a shame that votes are not what counts, it's seats and turnout. :rolleyes:
The last election percentages were as:

View attachment 382805
And the prediction is
View attachment 382806

So Labour are 21%, and Reform on 29%. But who in their right mind gives Reform a half a chance at government in the next election? :ROFLMAO:
So at the last election, the result was 10% more for Labour, but Reform are only 8% above Labour, and there's no scrutiny of which constituencies.

Then there's turn-out.
It's fine stopping people in the street and asking them what their voting preference will be. But how many will actually go to the polls, and how many will change their mind before they get there? :rolleyes:
Fortunately smarter people than you have run the numbers..

 
after all this discussion you still don't understand SOLAS and the SARs convention.
neither SOLAS nor SARs state France have to accept migrants

you have spent the last dozen or so pages trying desperately to claim it states something which is not there

given that your argument is predicated on English vessel not acting in innocent passage, the French will say "go read UNCLOS 19g now fek off"






in any case you are only talking about a very small number of small boats in an emergency situation that could even result in the possibility of that scenario
 
I wasn't looking for your confirmation.
Yes, I recognise that you regularly misinterpret what someone has said. :rolleyes:

Unless of course you are being paid to reduce illegal immigrants entering UK territory.
There you go - a perfect example of my previous comment.
We, including you, were discussing the contents of UNCLOS, and or SOLAS, not the unlikelihood of someone being employed to do a job. :rolleyes:

Not the case in the Channel. Such a vessel probably wouldn't get involved
Which is exactly what I've said previously. :rolleyes:
and if it did, it could just wait outside for a pilot or similar to disembark those rescued.
Or accommodate them until it reaches a safe opportunity to land them.
Transferring passengers at sea is not without hazards, and depending on sea conditions, not worth the risk.


Again, it's not the Atlantic. An isolated weather front over North France or local fog is likely to be the only scenario and highly unlikely that it would prevent you from landing nearby.
It happens to have a very high, strong and fast tidal flow. 10 kilometres an hour is not unheard of. I thought you claimed to be a mariner? :ROFLMAO:
And as you know (or should do) it can be more dangerous for small vessels to maintain speeds in certain sea conditions.
You really do need to assess your self-description of a mariner. You're misleading your pupils. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Funny how these boats are too fragile to be gently pushed around by a jet ski, but can be towed many miles without a problem.
Again you're misunderstanding of being pushed or pulled from one end, with the concept of being pushed inwards from both ends simultaneously.
You might need to re-asses your understanding of physics while you're self-assessing.
Each one as unlikely as the next.
I think it's fair to say that all incidents that occur at sea are unlikely to occur in normal circumstances. :rolleyes:
That's why UNCLOS was formed, to deal with the unexpected. :rolleyes:
 
neither SOLAS nor SARs state France have to accept migrants

you have spent the last dozen or so pages trying desperately to claim it states something which is not there

given that your argument is predicated on English vessel not acting in innocent passage, the French will say "go read UNCLOS 19g now fek off"






in any case you are only talking about a very small number of small boats in an emergency situation that could even result in the possibility of that scenario
How do they comply with their obligation to:

ensure that masters of ships providing assistance by embarking persons in distress at sea are released from their obligations with minimum further deviation from the ships' intended voyage,
and ensure that survivors assisted are disembarked from the assisting ship and delivered to a place of safety, ... as soon as reasonably practicable.


If they are going to refuse the ship from disembarking such persons in a French port?
Still waiting for your answer
 
"The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent."

Pretty clear.
Pretty simple, you say, but you manage to misinterpret it every time. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Or you are intentionally classing a boatload of refugees as 'not innocent'.
Which is it? :rolleyes:
 
better just to turn them around before they reach the shipping lanes. Safer for everyone.
Or better still stop them when they attempt to board the boats.

Its pretty hard to drown standing on a beach.
Desperation? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Back
Top