The laws an ass !

[motorbiking]

So the RNLI/border force taxi simply needs to ask them where are you intending to go.

if they say England, then the offence is committed if they say France then call the French navy for a return ride.

I do not buy the story that these people are newly converted Christians or homosexuals but accept people say what they think will work.

 

[IT Minion]

Did noone actually read the article?

These four people were convicted as people smugglers because they steered the boats. On that basis the government decided they weren't refugees, but were smugglers instead. Which is not what the law meant, sitting at the tiller doesn't make you a people smuggler. So the court overturned their convictions.

 

[Notch7]

Did noone actually read the article?

These four people were convicted as people smugglers because they steered the boats. On that basis the government decided they weren't refugees, but were smugglers instead. Which is not what the law meant, sitting at the tiller doesn't make you a people smuggler. So the court overturned their convictions.

this was a policy thought out by Priti Patel and the Border Force ages a while ago

I remember lawyers saying at the time it was a blatant misinterpretation of the law and it any cases would get thrown out

 

[Notch7]

As its Christmas, here's a thought:

how about those people venting hatred at people that are fleeing from war and persecution, show a bit of human kindness.

Merry Christmas everybody

 

[Lower]

please think about this, it’s not logical.

Your argument means that every single person leaving a country due to war or persecution has to stop in the neighbouring country.

It’s not the fault of the neighbouring country so why should they take responsibility?

What you are suggesting would destabilise the neighbouring country

Using that argument, its not our fault either so why should we take responsibility? There is a strong argument it's destabilising our country.

 

[IT Minion]

Using that argument, its not our fault either so why should we take responsibility? There is a strong argument it's destabilising our country.

Yep, Brexit.

 

[AngleEyes]

In addition, the article referred to by Gasbanni clearly indicates that it is not a crime to arrive in UK to claim asylum, and especially if you have entered UK waters and wait for rescue:

The Court of Appeal said it had not been proven they intended to enter the UK illegally.
The men were intercepted by Border Force officials on separate crossings in 2019 and 2020 and were all convicted separately.
The case hinged on whether the men intended to land illegally in the UK, outside of a port area.
"If, on the other hand, the facilitator knows the only way in which the migrant intends to enter the United Kingdom is being brought ashore by UK Border Force, then he will not be committing an offence."
From Gasbanni's linked article​

It is abundantly clear from this article what UK law is:
If you enter UK to claim asylum, either via a port area, irrespective of your mode of transport, or you are intercepted or rescued by anyone, you are not committing any offence.
I strongly suspect any case involving anyone arriving on a beach will similarly be dismissed.

 

[AngleEyes]

please think about this, it’s not logical.

Your argument means that every single person leaving a country due to war or persecution has to stop in the neighbouring country.

It’s not the fault of the neighbouring country so why should they take responsibility?

What you are suggesting would destabilise the neighbouring country

Using that argument, its not our fault either so why should we take responsibility? There is a strong argument it's destabilising our country.

It's also the fault of the countries making and selling arms to those governments prepared to use them on civilian populations.
In which case it is partly the fault of UK, and UK should expect to shoulder an equal burden of the mess they cause.

 

[Notch7]

Using that argument, its not our fault either so why should we take responsibility? There is a strong argument it's destabilising our country.

ah yes the "its not our fault" argument



If its "not our fault"

then the French can say "sorry chum, its not our fault"
the Germans can say "its not our fault"
the Turks can say "its not our fault"
the Italians can say "its not our fault"


Have we solved the problem??

 

[AngleEyes]

An asylum seeker has to stop at first safe country, so unless the EU country they came from was not considered safe, then they are not asylum seekers.

Clearly once out of the country where dangerous for them to stop, any ex asylum seeker will try to find a country which suits him, so if for example an English speaker he would want a country where they speak English, but once in first safe country he ceases to be an asylum seeker. And further moves he is an economic migrant.

Before we left EU there was some sort of agreement about sharing the load for asylum seekers, but that ended when we left.

There have been some silly rules which have been tried, like must speak English, even when the girl was from Patagonia, and spoke good Welsh, and was wanting to study in Wales.

What is it with these right-wing anti-immigrant campaigners.
Their message has been proven false time and time again, but they still spout the same old garbage.

Is it because they choose to ignore the posts proving them wrong time and time again. In which case they've proven the fallacy of sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. That's a typical Boris approach.

 

[Notch7]

There is a strong argument it's destabilising our country.

there were about 3x more asylum claims in 2004 -I dont believe it destabilised the country then

 

[AngleEyes]

I do not buy the story that these people are newly converted Christians or homosexuals but accept people say what they think will work.

You do like to focus on irrelevancies.
Their religion in UK is not relevant. Their religion was only relevant for their reason for fleeing their home country.
And fortunately your opinion does not count on their assessment for asylum. If it did, you, along with woody, et al would be content to see them all left to drown in the Channel, or returned to face death, starvation, torture or persecution.

 

[AngleEyes]

Using that argument, its not our fault either so why should we take responsibility? There is a strong argument it's destabilising our country.

It's the xenophobes who are trying to cause instability. it is they who are preaching intolerance, division and hatred.
And in some posters cases, they desperately wish for chaos.

 

[Lower]

ah yes the "its not our fault" argument



If its "not our fault"

then the French can say "sorry chum, its not our fault"
the Germans can say "its not our fault"
the Turks can say "its not our fault"
the Italians can say "its not our fault"


Have we solved the problem??

No we haven't solved the problem.

But you can't use the argument that its not the neighbouring countries fault to justify why we should take asylum seekers who've travelled through a multitude of safe countries to get to ours because its not our fault either.

 

[Lower]

You do like to focus on irrelevancies.
Their religion in UK is not relevant. Their religion was only relevant for their reason for fleeing their home country.
And fortunately your opinion does not count on their assessment for asylum. If it did, you, along with woody, et al would be content to see them all left to drown in the Channel, or returned to face death, starvation, torture or persecution.

Their religion does matter. It matters when they convert to another religion purely to assist with their asylum application, ie suggesting that the fact they have converted to Christianity would make them liable to persecution in their country of origin.