|
|
Post by Dogburger on Apr 25, 2024 14:44:47 GMT
Maybe we should just sub contract protecting the beaches out to the Germans , they can't feck it up twice
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 25, 2024 14:48:11 GMT
A duty to protect life exists for governments, not only under refugee and human rights law, but also under the law of the sea on search and rescue. Whatever the political pressures at home, the UK has signed up to multiple conventions that require it to maintain robust search and rescue operations in the area, to cooperate to provide prompt assistance, save lives, and deliver the shipwrecked to a place of safety. These conventions are: The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 98(1)), and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. theconversation.com/channel-deaths-the-uk-has-clear-legal-responsibilities-towards-people-crossing-in-small-boats-172639 |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 25, 2024 15:46:59 GMT
People smuggling kills thousands every year. We reward criminals with hotel rooms and then thousands more drown.
To save the majority who will drown if we go on as we are, we need either to create tented refugee processing camps on wet and windy Scottish islands, or, deport.
To deport we would need to change our interpretation of human rights legislation. So give them tents and earthen toilets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 25, 2024 15:48:08 GMT
A duty to protect life exists for governments, not only under refugee and human rights law, but also under the law of the sea on search and rescue. Whatever the political pressures at home, the UK has signed up to multiple conventions that require it to maintain robust search and rescue operations in the area, to cooperate to provide prompt assistance, save lives, and deliver the shipwrecked to a place of safety. These conventions are: The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 98(1)), and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. theconversation.com/channel-deaths-the-uk-has-clear-legal-responsibilities-towards-people-crossing-in-small-boats-172639The law of the sea, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) clearly states that any coastal state may take the actions necessary to prevent infringement of it's customs and immigration laws. As Richard Tice and Ben Habib have said on many occasions, this legislation gives the government the lawful right to stop illegals entering UK territorial waters. UNCLOS SECTION 4. Article 33 Contiguous zone 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulation committed within its territory or territorial sea. www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdfPoliticians are frightened to enact international law because the EU Labour and lefties would be outraged. Which is why we need a proper centre right Conservative government who puts this country and British people first. Wouldn't that make a nice change. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 25, 2024 16:01:06 GMT
A duty to protect life exists for governments, not only under refugee and human rights law, but also under the law of the sea on search and rescue. Whatever the political pressures at home, the UK has signed up to multiple conventions that require it to maintain robust search and rescue operations in the area, to cooperate to provide prompt assistance, save lives, and deliver the shipwrecked to a place of safety. These conventions are: The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 98(1)), and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. theconversation.com/channel-deaths-the-uk-has-clear-legal-responsibilities-towards-people-crossing-in-small-boats-172639The law of the sea, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) clearly states that any coastal state may take the actions necessary to prevent infringement of it's customs and immigration laws. As Richard Tice and Ben Habib have said on many occasions, this legislation gives the government the lawful right to stop illegals entering UK territorial waters. UNCLOS SECTION 4. Article 33 Contiguous zone 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulation committed within its territory or territorial sea. www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdfPoliticians are frightened to enact international law because the EU Labour and lefties would be outraged. Which is why we need a proper centre right Conservative government who puts this country and British people first. Wouldn't that make a nice change. I was addressing the OP question of whether migrants should be allowed to drown in the channel. Italy ran afoul of those conventions but I don't know what the penalty was. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 25, 2024 16:14:58 GMT
I was addressing the OP question of whether migrants should be allowed to drown in the channel. Italy ran afoul of those conventions but I don't know what the penalty was. People, regardless of whether they're immigrants, getting into difficulties and drowning in French territorial waters has got absolutely nothing to do with the UK. Particularly when French authorities including the police and Maritime Gendarmerie, do nothing other than watch from a distance. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 25, 2024 16:23:59 GMT
I was addressing the OP question of whether migrants should be allowed to drown in the channel. Italy ran afoul of those conventions but I don't know what the penalty was. People, regardless of whether they're immigrants, getting into difficulties and drowning in French territorial waters has got absolutely nothing to do with the UK. Particularly when French authorities including the police and Maritime Gendarmerie, do nothing other than watch from a distance. This is the point - it is within the power of the French to stop the small boat crossings overnight. That they choose not to is a decision for them and them alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 25, 2024 16:34:56 GMT
I was addressing the OP question of whether migrants should be allowed to drown in the channel. Italy ran afoul of those conventions but I don't know what the penalty was. People, regardless of whether they're immigrants, getting into difficulties and drowning in French territorial waters has got absolutely nothing to do with the UK. Particularly when French authorities including the police and Maritime Gendarmerie, do nothing other than watch from a distance. I believe Habib was referring to British territorial waters. Mr Habib said, “I’m not going to be held to ransom by their claim that they deserve protection as soon as they get into our territorial waters." |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 25, 2024 16:40:24 GMT
People, regardless of whether they're immigrants, getting into difficulties and drowning in French territorial waters has got absolutely nothing to do with the UK. Particularly when French authorities including the police and Maritime Gendarmerie, do nothing other than watch from a distance. I believe Habib was referring to British territorial waters. Mr Habib said, “I’m not going to be held to ransom by their claim that they deserve protection as soon as they get into our territorial waters." Criminals crossing the channel in dinghies don't get into trouble in British waters. French authorities always call Border Farce and/or RNLI to 'rescue' criminals from French waters, sometimes within throwing distance of a French beach. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 25, 2024 16:47:06 GMT
I believe Habib was referring to British territorial waters. Mr Habib said, “I’m not going to be held to ransom by their claim that they deserve protection as soon as they get into our territorial waters." Criminals crossing the channel in dinghies don't get into trouble in British waters. French authorities always call Border Farce and/or RNLI to 'rescue' criminals from French waters, sometimes within throwing distance of a French beach. According to the link in my earlier post: "The UK and France also have a duty of cooperation under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the Search and Rescue Convention to prevent loss of life at sea and ensure completion of a search and rescue operation. This includes a responsibility on both sides to contact the other’s authorities as soon as they receive information about people in danger and to cooperate on search and rescue operations for anyone in distress at sea... Once a boat enters UK territorial waters, the UK’s primary responsibility for search and rescue is triggered. Nor is there any grey area when it comes to the Dover Strait – the narrowest part of the Channel across which most flimsy migrant boats travel. Here, there are no international waters. France and the UK are so close that as soon as vessels leave French waters, they enter UK waters. The UK’s primary responsibility is triggered the moment a boat leaves French waters." theconversation.com/channel-deaths-the-uk-has-clear-legal-responsibilities-towards-people-crossing-in-small-boats-172639 |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 25, 2024 17:03:55 GMT
According to the link in my earlier post: "The UK and France also have a duty of cooperation under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the Search and Rescue Convention to prevent loss of life at sea and ensure completion of a search and rescue operation. This includes a responsibility on both sides to contact the other’s authorities as soon as they receive information about people in danger and to cooperate on search and rescue operations for anyone in distress at sea... Once a boat enters UK territorial waters, the UK’s primary responsibility for search and rescue is triggered. Nor is there any grey area when it comes to the Dover Strait – the narrowest part of the Channel across which most flimsy migrant boats travel. Here, there are no international waters. France and the UK are so close that as soon as vessels leave French waters, they enter UK waters. The UK’s primary responsibility is triggered the moment a boat leaves French waters." theconversation.com/channel-deaths-the-uk-has-clear-legal-responsibilities-towards-people-crossing-in-small-boats-172639Ripley, you must surely be aware that the 'duty of cooperation' you speak of is a one way street. French authorities regularly alert British authorities that a dingy full of illegals in French territorial waters and often close to the beach from which they have just set off as the French police wave them bon voyage, requires assistance. Illegals never require assistance in UK waters because the Border Farce/RNLI cross the channel to pick them up in French waters as French authorities look on. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 25, 2024 17:26:41 GMT
According to the link in my earlier post: "The UK and France also have a duty of cooperation under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the Search and Rescue Convention to prevent loss of life at sea and ensure completion of a search and rescue operation. This includes a responsibility on both sides to contact the other’s authorities as soon as they receive information about people in danger and to cooperate on search and rescue operations for anyone in distress at sea... Once a boat enters UK territorial waters, the UK’s primary responsibility for search and rescue is triggered. Nor is there any grey area when it comes to the Dover Strait – the narrowest part of the Channel across which most flimsy migrant boats travel. Here, there are no international waters. France and the UK are so close that as soon as vessels leave French waters, they enter UK waters. The UK’s primary responsibility is triggered the moment a boat leaves French waters." theconversation.com/channel-deaths-the-uk-has-clear-legal-responsibilities-towards-people-crossing-in-small-boats-172639Ripley, you must surely be aware that the 'duty of cooperation' you speak of is a one way street. French authorities regularly alert British authorities that a dingy full of illegals in French territorial waters and often close to the beach from which they have just set off as the French police wave them bon voyage, requires assistance. Illegals never require assistance in UK waters because the Border Farce/RNLI cross the channel to pick them up in French waters as French authorities look on. That's because it's the policy of the Coast Guard to presume that all migrant vessels in UK waters are in “imminent danger” and require “immediate assistance”. They then task the Border Force (and less often the RNLI) with recovering small boats. I understand the RNLI recently refused to rescue a boat because no people were in the water. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 25, 2024 17:29:57 GMT
Let Smokers die of Cancer they know the danger and Choose to Smoke . Even warning are on the package. Do you think I have a good point ? Jonsky But we do let them die of cancer, only royalty got treated during the pandemic |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 25, 2024 17:34:44 GMT
Let Smokers die of Cancer they know the danger and Choose to Smoke . Even warning are on the package. Do you think I have a good point ? Jonsky But we do let them die of cancer, only royalty got treated during the pandemic Yep and a great many died as the NHS are were more concerned with monky pox than treating real ailments....I wonder how many more will die because they are now stuck on a massive waiting list for treatment...?
EDIT..........Cancer waiting times in 2023 worst on record in England
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 25, 2024 17:48:03 GMT
Explain to me and the others the difference lefty old bean of those who have paid for medication in the UK for all their lives and those that have paid fuck all? cost of smoking to society totals £17.04bn for England each year. That's over 2% of the NHS budget . Ah i wan waiting for some fool to pull that one Many years ago BEFORE the labour party decided to bring in a smoking ban, Norwich Union's loss adjusters an auditors took part in a BBC funded study of the cost of health and health risks. It was interesting broadcasting.
At that time, the audotirs came up with some rather interesting facts
Obesity below the point where you can no longer stand and walk is actually negligible. Metformin is cheap and the only real issue to the NHS was keee and hip replacements, which they proposed a sugar tax (which we nw have) would pay for, and the reduction in life expectancy was at most five years.
The REAL cost crippling the NHS was fit bastards. A fitness freak such as the asshole ex transport minister wanted to turn us all into to save the NHS billions would actually becime a vegetable long before their bodies broke and took them off this mortal plane. With minds addled by alzheimers or worse, these super fit corpses in all but name would lie vegetatitively in care homes needing 24/7/365 care when in any sane society wear and tear would have shuffled them off into a coffin long ago. The cost of looking after these vegetables until their super fit bodies wore out four decades after their minds gave up was utterly astronomic.
And the auditors left smokers till last
In the world of smoking before the smoking ban and before Labour made smokers the new antichrist, the COST of purchasing cigarettes etc was ASTRONOMIC and the TAX TAKE flooding into the treasury was obscene.
SMOKERS genrally cut ten, perhaps twenty years off their lifespan, often dying before the lifetime of National Insurance they had paid had to be burdened with any sort of payout, and in those days company pensions were not personal lump sums your estate's beneficiaries received tax free, but were instead taxed at 40% as a minimum on the company pension scheme for having the audacity to overcollect on the amounts actually paid.
By dying so early, and failing to receive any pension, smokers were a cash cow beyond any other, payng on and getting nothing
And moreover, the tax take from tobacco taxes was so crippling that the exchequer received MORE each year than the NHS needed to treat every single case of every single person presenting themselves with a disease considered to be exacerbated by smoking, and that included every single NON smoker struck down by the same disease
So in fact, Norwich Union's loss adjusters said, the whole country needed to get down on bended knee and give thanjs for the smoker, whose self sacrifice was a gesture beyond measure that was funding the NHS and the government in a =manner that most could only DREAM of
And what did that one eyed twat in number 11 do ?
Made it fucking illegal, and turned off his tax revenue
What a prize ass hole
|
|
