FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > RNLI and migrants
RNLI and migrants
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI is an excellent national organisation that is, thankfully, independent of Government. So, when those zenophobic people withdraw funding, because the RNLI have saved the lives of migrants, they are also risking the lives of fishermen in the north sea, sailers in the solent, children in Blackpool, d*unks who fall in the Thames, etc etc. Those who man the boats are a credit and an example to humanity. They do it for free, often risking their own lives, because it is the right thing to do. Over the 200 years of their existence they must have saved the lives of countless murders, child abusers, robbers, wife beaters along with saints, children, philanthropists, etc etc. I for one don't want them trying to guess the acceptability of those they set out to save to the Cancel Culture anti migrant mob before they save their lives. Let the Government do what they are supposed to do; and the RNLI continue to save the lives of those in peril on the sea. " Eloquently put. I was trying to rationalise with a forumrite (or should that be forumewrong?) the other day about their cancellation of RNLI funding. I said that their withdrawl affects all people who might need the RNLI, not just migrants. Alas, they didn't seem to give a shit. Migrants use libraries. Perhaps they should stop using those too. Oh and doctors. And shops. And the fire service. And go after the police too, as they help everyone, including migrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. " I've seen such statements on here before about stopping donations due to the migrants. These RNLI people do a fantastic job but as long as they rely on donations then they can't avoid people exercising their right to stop donating. I feel comparing someone who stops donations the same as manslaughter ect is wrong though. I have never given to the RNLI so does that make me bad? Personally I feel they should get enough funding from government and any donations on top are all for the good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI is an excellent national organisation that is, thankfully, independent of Government. So, when those zenophobic people withdraw funding, because the RNLI have saved the lives of migrants, they are also risking the lives of fishermen in the north sea, sailers in the solent, children in Blackpool, d*unks who fall in the Thames, etc etc. Those who man the boats are a credit and an example to humanity. They do it for free, often risking their own lives, because it is the right thing to do. Over the 200 years of their existence they must have saved the lives of countless murders, child abusers, robbers, wife beaters along with saints, children, philanthropists, etc etc. I for one don't want them trying to guess the acceptability of those they set out to save to the Cancel Culture anti migrant mob before they save their lives. Let the Government do what they are supposed to do; and the RNLI continue to save the lives of those in peril on the sea. Eloquently put. I was trying to rationalise with a forumrite (or should that be forumewrong?) the other day about their cancellation of RNLI funding. I said that their withdrawl affects all people who might need the RNLI, not just migrants. Alas, they didn't seem to give a shit. Migrants use libraries. Perhaps they should stop using those too. Oh and doctors. And shops. And the fire service. And go after the police too, as they help everyone, including migrants." Something, perhaps the internet and anonymous social media, has degraded humanity in the 2000s. Cancel culture and mob rule is on the rise. It would be worth rememberieng what Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor in Nazi Germany said in the 1940s. "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. " The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. " The news outlets are full of stories asking migrants why they are here, mostly for a better life, some fleeing but mostly to earn better money and a better standard of living. this is why I struggle when people actually see every person as a victim that crossed the channel. That sort of misaligned thinking isn't making anything better, it makes it worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. The news outlets are full of stories asking migrants why they are here, mostly for a better life, some fleeing but mostly to earn better money and a better standard of living. this is why I struggle when people actually see every person as a victim that crossed the channel. That sort of misaligned thinking isn't making anything better, it makes it worse. " he openly admitted he wasn't fleeing persecution but believed it was his right to free movement for a job. He should be deported immediately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter "You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect."The rnli can use the funds how they want. But they shouldn't simply expect the kind hearted donations to fund bringing back migrants. Calling it tantamount to manslaughter is embarrassing. You're better than that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all part of tbe hyperbole problem People call ukip and farage far right and a xenophobe without proper regard for the meaning. They compare our government to nazis. They call everything a crisis / emergency. And compare not giving donations manslaughter. No wonder people are fed up" 
*********************************
Spot-on, thank you..! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all part of tbe hyperbole problem People call ukip and farage far right and a xenophobe without proper regard for the meaning. They compare our government to nazis. They call everything a crisis / emergency. And compare not giving donations manslaughter. No wonder people are fed up" This is exactly what my brother-in-law says. He's been radicalised by GB news and the right wing press and fallen for the demonisation of anyone who is not the same as him. Nothing is ever the government's fault. It's always "other people". People "not" like him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect."I am an RNLI supporter. Have been for decades and _will always_ be. I support them because I sail and I know what the power of the sea is. I think it is gross in the extreme to equate someone stopping a donation to manslaughter. By that line of thinking what does it say about all the people who have _never_ supported the RNLI? The RNLI should not be in the position where they are being called out on an almost constant basis. This is a volunteer group and the people who do it have lives that every call out disrupts. The RNLI is an emergency service not a taxi service and these migrant boats need to be stopped going to sea. The people who are aiding, whether criminally or through well intentioned actions, are the ones who you should apply your manslaughter label to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect.
I am an RNLI supporter. Have been for decades and _will always_ be. I support them because I sail and I know what the power of the sea is.
I think it is gross in the extreme to equate someone stopping a donation to manslaughter. By that line of thinking what does it say about all the people who have _never_ supported the RNLI?
The RNLI should not be in the position where they are being called out on an almost constant basis. This is a volunteer group and the people who do it have lives that every call out disrupts.
The RNLI is an emergency service not a taxi service and these migrant boats need to be stopped going to sea. The people who are aiding, whether criminally or through well intentioned actions, are the ones who you should apply your manslaughter label to."*********************************  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect.
The rnli can use the funds how they want.
But they shouldn't simply expect the kind hearted donations to fund bringing back migrants.
Calling it tantamount to manslaughter is embarrassing. You're better than that "So what would you call refusing to go to the aid of a sinking vessel meaning the people onboard are sure to drown? I am better than that. Only scum would withhold donations from the RNLI because they have sometimes saved the “wrong lives”. True colours showing their Morley. Very disappointing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect.
I am an RNLI supporter. Have been for decades and _will always_ be. I support them because I sail and I know what the power of the sea is.
I think it is gross in the extreme to equate someone stopping a donation to manslaughter. By that line of thinking what does it say about all the people who have _never_ supported the RNLI?
The RNLI should not be in the position where they are being called out on an almost constant basis. This is a volunteer group and the people who do it have lives that every call out disrupts.
The RNLI is an emergency service not a taxi service and these migrant boats need to be stopped going to sea. The people who are aiding, whether criminally or through well intentioned actions, are the ones who you should apply your manslaughter label to."Stopping donations is anyone’s prerogative. But if your reason to stop donations is because they sometimes save the wrong people from drowning!!!! Hmmmm ok so you must be comfortable that people will die that could have been prevented. As someone who sails you, as you say, know the value and sometimes personal sacrifice of people in the RNLI. Do you really support the reasoning for stopping your donations? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect.
I am an RNLI supporter. Have been for decades and _will always_ be. I support them because I sail and I know what the power of the sea is.
I think it is gross in the extreme to equate someone stopping a donation to manslaughter. By that line of thinking what does it say about all the people who have _never_ supported the RNLI?
The RNLI should not be in the position where they are being called out on an almost constant basis. This is a volunteer group and the people who do it have lives that every call out disrupts.
The RNLI is an emergency service not a taxi service and these migrant boats need to be stopped going to sea. The people who are aiding, whether criminally or through well intentioned actions, are the ones who you should apply your manslaughter label to.
Stopping donations is anyone’s prerogative. But if your reason to stop donations is because they sometimes save the wrong people from drowning!!!! Hmmmm ok so you must be comfortable that people will die that could have been prevented.
As someone who sails you, as you say, know the value and sometimes personal sacrifice of people in the RNLI. Do you really support the reasoning for stopping your donations?"I haven’t stopped my donations. That is what I meant when I said I will always support them. Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI is an excellent national organisation that is, thankfully, independent of Government. So, when those zenophobic people withdraw funding, because the RNLI have saved the lives of migrants, they are also risking the lives of fishermen in the north sea, sailers in the solent, children in Blackpool, d*unks who fall in the Thames, etc etc. Those who man the boats are a credit and an example to humanity. They do it for free, often risking their own lives, because it is the right thing to do. Over the 200 years of their existence they must have saved the lives of countless murders, child abusers, robbers, wife beaters along with saints, children, philanthropists, etc etc. I for one don't want them trying to guess the acceptability of those they set out to save to the Cancel Culture anti migrant mob before they save their lives. Let the Government do what they are supposed to do; and the RNLI continue to save the lives of those in peril on the sea. Eloquently put. I was trying to rationalise with a forumrite (or should that be forumewrong?) the other day about their cancellation of RNLI funding. I said that their withdrawl affects all people who might need the RNLI, not just migrants. Alas, they didn't seem to give a shit. Migrants use libraries. Perhaps they should stop using those too. Oh and doctors. And shops. And the fire service. And go after the police too, as they help everyone, including migrants. Something, perhaps the internet and anonymous social media, has degraded humanity in the 2000s. Cancel culture and mob rule is on the rise. It would be worth rememberieng what Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor in Nazi Germany said in the 1940s. "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." " Its a point I made on another thread. The migrants are a godsend for government and their supporters. At they are getting to bash the lowest who don't have a vote. Otherwise it would have been the single mothers, benefit scroungers, unemployed and homeless etc. If the migrants disappeared the aim simply moves up to the next most vulnerable. It doesn't stop. There's always got to be a target to blame. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. The news outlets are full of stories asking migrants why they are here, mostly for a better life, some fleeing but mostly to earn better money and a better standard of living. this is why I struggle when people actually see every person as a victim that crossed the channel. That sort of misaligned thinking isn't making anything better, it makes it worse. he openly admitted he wasn't fleeing persecution but believed it was his right to free movement for a job. He should be deported immediately." is there links to this? I haven't seen this and can't find it easily (as bbc is a nightmare to search) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect.
I am an RNLI supporter. Have been for decades and _will always_ be. I support them because I sail and I know what the power of the sea is.
I think it is gross in the extreme to equate someone stopping a donation to manslaughter. By that line of thinking what does it say about all the people who have _never_ supported the RNLI?
The RNLI should not be in the position where they are being called out on an almost constant basis. This is a volunteer group and the people who do it have lives that every call out disrupts.
The RNLI is an emergency service not a taxi service and these migrant boats need to be stopped going to sea. The people who are aiding, whether criminally or through well intentioned actions, are the ones who you should apply your manslaughter label to.
Stopping donations is anyone’s prerogative. But if your reason to stop donations is because they sometimes save the wrong people from drowning!!!! Hmmmm ok so you must be comfortable that people will die that could have been prevented.
As someone who sails you, as you say, know the value and sometimes personal sacrifice of people in the RNLI. Do you really support the reasoning for stopping your donations?
I haven’t stopped my donations. That is what I meant when I said I will always support them.
Do you support the RNLI?
What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as?
I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions.
The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. "That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives." Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All the problems around the RNLI saving people on boats or even the asylum system in general boils down to one root cause - We have age old laws that were written with good intentions in mind, but are well past expiry date - The maritime laws, UN Refugee convention and ECHR. Instead of getting together and fixing them so that the loopholes cannot be exploited, all countries are trying to work around them. This obviously doesn't work well. The maritime law states that anyone in distress in the sea has to be saved and taken to a port nearby. It was written to save people genuinely in distress. What if someone takes a boat closer to a country's waters and raises distress alarm just to use it as a way to get around the immigration laws of a country? This is exactly what's happening now and people are wrongly blaming RNLI for that. Same with laws around asylum seekers. It was written to save people genuinely oppressed in different countries. What if someone shows up in a country without a passport or any sort of identity and claims that they are from a specific region and are oppressed? We just have to go by their words without a shred of evidence. For example, 4 out of 5 refugees in Sweden have travelled back to holiday in the country they claim to have fleed from. And yet, it any of them committed a crime in Sweden, they cannot be deported to the country because apparently it's too dangerous for them. Now instead of fixing the loopholes in the refugee convention and ECHR, the flow of events will be political parties taking the countries out of the UN Refugee convention and ECHR, which is a shame because they both have lot of good things going for them. " great post. If there was real political will (domestic and international) they could sort this out (or improve things). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place." As I have said, anyone deciding to stop funding any charity at any time is 100% their prerogative. No argument there. The issue, and therefore the criticism, is in this specific case, people are stopping their donations on the basis of the RNLI saving the “wrong people”. I think that is a terrible reason to stop donating. It means that those former donors are happy for the RNLI to have less funds and a reduced capability because they have been saving people the donors do not agree with. Those donors are politicising the actions of a charity that is only doing what it was set up to do! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place. As I have said, anyone deciding to stop funding any charity at any time is 100% their prerogative. No argument there. The issue, and therefore the criticism, is in this specific case, people are stopping their donations on the basis of the RNLI saving the “wrong people”. I think that is a terrible reason to stop donating. It means that those former donors are happy for the RNLI to have less funds and a reduced capability because they have been saving people the donors do not agree with. Those donors are politicising the actions of a charity that is only doing what it was set up to do!" At least they gave some funding. You haven’t answered the question I have asked several times: are you a _long term_ supporter of the RNLI? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All the problems around the RNLI saving people on boats or even the asylum system in general boils down to one root cause - We have age old laws that were written with good intentions in mind, but are well past expiry date - The maritime laws, UN Refugee convention and ECHR. Instead of getting together and fixing them so that the loopholes cannot be exploited, all countries are trying to work around them. This obviously doesn't work well. The maritime law states that anyone in distress in the sea has to be saved and taken to a port nearby. It was written to save people genuinely in distress. What if someone takes a boat closer to a country's waters and raises distress alarm just to use it as a way to get around the immigration laws of a country? This is exactly what's happening now and people are wrongly blaming RNLI for that. Same with laws around asylum seekers. It was written to save people genuinely oppressed in different countries. What if someone shows up in a country without a passport or any sort of identity and claims that they are from a specific region and are oppressed? We just have to go by their words without a shred of evidence. For example, 4 out of 5 refugees in Sweden have travelled back to holiday in the country they claim to have fleed from. And yet, it any of them committed a crime in Sweden, they cannot be deported to the country because apparently it's too dangerous for them. Now instead of fixing the loopholes in the refugee convention and ECHR, the flow of events will be political parties taking the countries out of the UN Refugee convention and ECHR, which is a shame because they both have lot of good things going for them. great post. If there was real political will (domestic and international) they could sort this out (or improve things)."I wouldn't have my hopes up about political will. Both left and right wing parties want to play football with these issues as much as possible. Right wing parties try to blame the laws and taking countries out of the conventions to benefit themselves while left wing parties virtue signal and try to ban any conversation around it by calling it hate speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place. As I have said, anyone deciding to stop funding any charity at any time is 100% their prerogative. No argument there. The issue, and therefore the criticism, is in this specific case, people are stopping their donations on the basis of the RNLI saving the “wrong people”. I think that is a terrible reason to stop donating. It means that those former donors are happy for the RNLI to have less funds and a reduced capability because they have been saving people the donors do not agree with. Those donors are politicising the actions of a charity that is only doing what it was set up to do! At least they gave some funding. You haven’t answered the question I have asked several times: are you a _long term_ supporter of the RNLI?" I said several posts back yes I am and said why, I live by the sea so it is all very real. You didn’t answer my question, so again I will rephrase as a scenario... You sail. No idea if you are a boat owner, but let’s assume you are. You go sailing with friends in the Channel and hear a distress call from a nearby small boat carrying illegal migrants. Do you: A) Ignore them and leave them to their own fate (inevitable sinking and probable drowning). B) Go to their aid. If A then that is that, end of story. However, if B then imagine what happens when you get back into the Marina. You will have called ahead and Border Force/Police should be waiting. But then the Marina owner tells you that you can no longer berth in their marina going forward because he doesn’t agree with you rescuing those illegal migrants. Sound fair? Sound acceptable? It doesn’t to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place. As I have said, anyone deciding to stop funding any charity at any time is 100% their prerogative. No argument there. The issue, and therefore the criticism, is in this specific case, people are stopping their donations on the basis of the RNLI saving the “wrong people”. I think that is a terrible reason to stop donating. It means that those former donors are happy for the RNLI to have less funds and a reduced capability because they have been saving people the donors do not agree with. Those donors are politicising the actions of a charity that is only doing what it was set up to do! At least they gave some funding. You haven’t answered the question I have asked several times: are you a _long term_ supporter of the RNLI? I said several posts back yes I am and said why, I live by the sea so it is all very real. You didn’t answer my question, so again I will rephrase as a scenario... You sail. No idea if you are a boat owner, but let’s assume you are. You go sailing with friends in the Channel and hear a distress call from a nearby small boat carrying illegal migrants. Do you: A) Ignore them and leave them to their own fate (inevitable sinking and probable drowning). B) Go to their aid. If A then that is that, end of story. However, if B then imagine what happens when you get back into the Marina. You will have called ahead and Border Force/Police should be waiting. But then the Marina owner tells you that you can no longer berth in their marina going forward because he doesn’t agree with you rescuing those illegal migrants. Sound fair? Sound acceptable? It doesn’t to me." Clearly I would rescue anyone if I could. Any person on the sea would go to the rescue of someone in need. That does not mean to say that I would not be very angry if I found that the person who was rescued was there through negligence. If they were in a boat that was manifestly unfit to go to sea then I think that is scandalous on their part. _No one_ should needlessly put another persons life at risk just so they can be rescued. We are very lucky in that we have not lost any rescue volunteers. That moment will, unfortunately, come and I dread it. Those people who are allowing those boats to be put to sea - whether criminal, charitable or governmental - need to take a long hard look at what they are facilitating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place. As I have said, anyone deciding to stop funding any charity at any time is 100% their prerogative. No argument there. The issue, and therefore the criticism, is in this specific case, people are stopping their donations on the basis of the RNLI saving the “wrong people”. I think that is a terrible reason to stop donating. It means that those former donors are happy for the RNLI to have less funds and a reduced capability because they have been saving people the donors do not agree with. Those donors are politicising the actions of a charity that is only doing what it was set up to do! At least they gave some funding. You haven’t answered the question I have asked several times: are you a _long term_ supporter of the RNLI? I said several posts back yes I am and said why, I live by the sea so it is all very real. You didn’t answer my question, so again I will rephrase as a scenario... You sail. No idea if you are a boat owner, but let’s assume you are. You go sailing with friends in the Channel and hear a distress call from a nearby small boat carrying illegal migrants. Do you: A) Ignore them and leave them to their own fate (inevitable sinking and probable drowning). B) Go to their aid. If A then that is that, end of story. However, if B then imagine what happens when you get back into the Marina. You will have called ahead and Border Force/Police should be waiting. But then the Marina owner tells you that you can no longer berth in their marina going forward because he doesn’t agree with you rescuing those illegal migrants. Sound fair? Sound acceptable? It doesn’t to me. Clearly I would rescue anyone if I could. Any person on the sea would go to the rescue of someone in need. That does not mean to say that I would not be very angry if I found that the person who was rescued was there through negligence. If they were in a boat that was manifestly unfit to go to sea then I think that is scandalous on their part. _No one_ should needlessly put another persons life at risk just so they can be rescued. We are very lucky in that we have not lost any rescue volunteers. That moment will, unfortunately, come and I dread it. Those people who are allowing those boats to be put to sea - whether criminal, charitable or governmental - need to take a long hard look at what they are facilitating." Totally agree with everything you say. But you didn’t really answer the question. Do it was B (phew and good) so how do you feel about the marina owners position? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place. As I have said, anyone deciding to stop funding any charity at any time is 100% their prerogative. No argument there. The issue, and therefore the criticism, is in this specific case, people are stopping their donations on the basis of the RNLI saving the “wrong people”. I think that is a terrible reason to stop donating. It means that those former donors are happy for the RNLI to have less funds and a reduced capability because they have been saving people the donors do not agree with. Those donors are politicising the actions of a charity that is only doing what it was set up to do! At least they gave some funding. You haven’t answered the question I have asked several times: are you a _long term_ supporter of the RNLI? I said several posts back yes I am and said why, I live by the sea so it is all very real. You didn’t answer my question, so again I will rephrase as a scenario... You sail. No idea if you are a boat owner, but let’s assume you are. You go sailing with friends in the Channel and hear a distress call from a nearby small boat carrying illegal migrants. Do you: A) Ignore them and leave them to their own fate (inevitable sinking and probable drowning). B) Go to their aid. If A then that is that, end of story. However, if B then imagine what happens when you get back into the Marina. You will have called ahead and Border Force/Police should be waiting. But then the Marina owner tells you that you can no longer berth in their marina going forward because he doesn’t agree with you rescuing those illegal migrants. Sound fair? Sound acceptable? It doesn’t to me. Clearly I would rescue anyone if I could. Any person on the sea would go to the rescue of someone in need. That does not mean to say that I would not be very angry if I found that the person who was rescued was there through negligence. If they were in a boat that was manifestly unfit to go to sea then I think that is scandalous on their part. _No one_ should needlessly put another persons life at risk just so they can be rescued. We are very lucky in that we have not lost any rescue volunteers. That moment will, unfortunately, come and I dread it. Those people who are allowing those boats to be put to sea - whether criminal, charitable or governmental - need to take a long hard look at what they are facilitating. Totally agree with everything you say. But you didn’t really answer the question. Do it was B (phew and good) so how do you feel about the marina owners position?" This is a bit bizarre. Has your hypothetical situation actually happened in real life? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Totally agree with everything you say. But you didn’t really answer the question. Do it was B (phew and good) so how do you feel about the marina owners position?" You have never been sailing have you? If you had then you would know that marina owners don’t care at all about your politics - all they care about is how many feet your boat is and what they can charge you per foot. I am being genuinely serious here. Berthing is just a business. No one who goes to sea would begrudge anyone who saves a life. Ever. Needlessly putting others lives at risk so you can be rescued through gross incompetence will likely mean that they don’t offer you a berth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Totally agree with everything you say. But you didn’t really answer the question. Do it was B (phew and good) so how do you feel about the marina owners position? This is a bit bizarre. Has your hypothetical situation actually happened in real life?" Of course it hasn’t happened. It is just trolling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place. As I have said, anyone deciding to stop funding any charity at any time is 100% their prerogative. No argument there. The issue, and therefore the criticism, is in this specific case, people are stopping their donations on the basis of the RNLI saving the “wrong people”. I think that is a terrible reason to stop donating. It means that those former donors are happy for the RNLI to have less funds and a reduced capability because they have been saving people the donors do not agree with. Those donors are politicising the actions of a charity that is only doing what it was set up to do! At least they gave some funding. You haven’t answered the question I have asked several times: are you a _long term_ supporter of the RNLI? I said several posts back yes I am and said why, I live by the sea so it is all very real. You didn’t answer my question, so again I will rephrase as a scenario... You sail. No idea if you are a boat owner, but let’s assume you are. You go sailing with friends in the Channel and hear a distress call from a nearby small boat carrying illegal migrants. Do you: A) Ignore them and leave them to their own fate (inevitable sinking and probable drowning). B) Go to their aid. If A then that is that, end of story. However, if B then imagine what happens when you get back into the Marina. You will have called ahead and Border Force/Police should be waiting. But then the Marina owner tells you that you can no longer berth in their marina going forward because he doesn’t agree with you rescuing those illegal migrants. Sound fair? Sound acceptable? It doesn’t to me. Clearly I would rescue anyone if I could. Any person on the sea would go to the rescue of someone in need. That does not mean to say that I would not be very angry if I found that the person who was rescued was there through negligence. If they were in a boat that was manifestly unfit to go to sea then I think that is scandalous on their part. _No one_ should needlessly put another persons life at risk just so they can be rescued. We are very lucky in that we have not lost any rescue volunteers. That moment will, unfortunately, come and I dread it. Those people who are allowing those boats to be put to sea - whether criminal, charitable or governmental - need to take a long hard look at what they are facilitating. Totally agree with everything you say. But you didn’t really answer the question. Do it was B (phew and good) so how do you feel about the marina owners position? This is a bit bizarre. Has your hypothetical situation actually happened in real life?" Who cares! It is analogous to someone declaring they are no longer going to donate to the RNLI because they are rescuing illegal immigrants from drowning (ie doing their job). You know what Feisty. Sometimes you don’t need to jump into a conversation! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect.
The rnli can use the funds how they want.
But they shouldn't simply expect the kind hearted donations to fund bringing back migrants.
Calling it tantamount to manslaughter is embarrassing. You're better than that
So what would you call refusing to go to the aid of a sinking vessel meaning the people onboard are sure to drown?
I am better than that. Only scum would withhold donations from the RNLI because they have sometimes saved the “wrong lives”.
True colours showing their Morley. Very disappointing. "The rnli isn't a taxi service. It's not there to pick up economic migra ts who pay more to the criminal gangs for this opportunity than the rnli receives from many many many individual donors. The rnli is a charity. People are rightly able to withhold their donations. Sadly some scum compare them to people who murder others. Quite reprehensible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Totally agree with everything you say. But you didn’t really answer the question. Do it was B (phew and good) so how do you feel about the marina owners position? This is a bit bizarre. Has your hypothetical situation actually happened in real life? Of course it hasn’t happened. It is just trolling." It really isn’t (see my post to Feisty) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you support the RNLI? What do you think the people who have never supported the RNLI should be labelled as? I understand the point you are making - and I actually agree with it - but I fundamentally disagree with attacking people for their donation decisions. The RNLI is going to suffer because of this and they should not be in that position. That is my concern. That wasn’t YOU it was you as in one. English language. I know you are a supporter. Yes I am. I live by the sea so it is all a very real danger. So let me reword the question. Do you support the decision by someone who has been a supporter of the RNLI who stops donations because they are saving the wrong people from drowning? Because that is the issue. As someone who sails you will know the expectation that any ship/boat should go to the aid of another in distress. So if you were sailing in the Channel and a small boat full of illegal migrants was sinking, would you ignore it? Let them drown? Should we as human beings accept that death which could be prevented by well trained specially equipped people, should no longer happen because they are saving the “wrong people” because those people made a bad choice? I agree the RNLI should most certainly not be coming under any flack or reduction in donations for doing the very thing they were set up to do. Save lives. Ultimately - yes I do support someone’s decision to stop donating to the RNLI. I am genuinely glad that they gave at least some of their money in support of a valuable organisation. Am I sad they would do it over this issue? Immensely. What I would not do is politicise their charitable decisions. I would turn that anger towards stopping unseaworthy boats being out to sea in the first place. As I have said, anyone deciding to stop funding any charity at any time is 100% their prerogative. No argument there. The issue, and therefore the criticism, is in this specific case, people are stopping their donations on the basis of the RNLI saving the “wrong people”. I think that is a terrible reason to stop donating. It means that those former donors are happy for the RNLI to have less funds and a reduced capability because they have been saving people the donors do not agree with. Those donors are politicising the actions of a charity that is only doing what it was set up to do! At least they gave some funding. You haven’t answered the question I have asked several times: are you a _long term_ supporter of the RNLI? I said several posts back yes I am and said why, I live by the sea so it is all very real. You didn’t answer my question, so again I will rephrase as a scenario... You sail. No idea if you are a boat owner, but let’s assume you are. You go sailing with friends in the Channel and hear a distress call from a nearby small boat carrying illegal migrants. Do you: A) Ignore them and leave them to their own fate (inevitable sinking and probable drowning). B) Go to their aid. If A then that is that, end of story. However, if B then imagine what happens when you get back into the Marina. You will have called ahead and Border Force/Police should be waiting. But then the Marina owner tells you that you can no longer berth in their marina going forward because he doesn’t agree with you rescuing those illegal migrants. Sound fair? Sound acceptable? It doesn’t to me. Clearly I would rescue anyone if I could. Any person on the sea would go to the rescue of someone in need. That does not mean to say that I would not be very angry if I found that the person who was rescued was there through negligence. If they were in a boat that was manifestly unfit to go to sea then I think that is scandalous on their part. _No one_ should needlessly put another persons life at risk just so they can be rescued. We are very lucky in that we have not lost any rescue volunteers. That moment will, unfortunately, come and I dread it. Those people who are allowing those boats to be put to sea - whether criminal, charitable or governmental - need to take a long hard look at what they are facilitating. Totally agree with everything you say. But you didn’t really answer the question. Do it was B (phew and good) so how do you feel about the marina owners position? This is a bit bizarre. Has your hypothetical situation actually happened in real life? Who cares! It is analogous to someone declaring they are no longer going to donate to the RNLI because they are rescuing illegal immigrants from drowning (ie doing their job). You know what Feisty. Sometimes you don’t need to jump into a conversation!" Well now that you made yourself the owner of the forum I'll duck out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All the problems around the RNLI saving people on boats or even the asylum system in general boils down to one root cause - We have age old laws that were written with good intentions in mind, but are well past expiry date - The maritime laws, UN Refugee convention and ECHR. Instead of getting together and fixing them so that the loopholes cannot be exploited, all countries are trying to work around them. This obviously doesn't work well. The maritime law states that anyone in distress in the sea has to be saved and taken to a port nearby. It was written to save people genuinely in distress. What if someone takes a boat closer to a country's waters and raises distress alarm just to use it as a way to get around the immigration laws of a country? This is exactly what's happening now and people are wrongly blaming RNLI for that. Same with laws around asylum seekers. It was written to save people genuinely oppressed in different countries. What if someone shows up in a country without a passport or any sort of identity and claims that they are from a specific region and are oppressed? We just have to go by their words without a shred of evidence. For example, 4 out of 5 refugees in Sweden have travelled back to holiday in the country they claim to have fleed from. And yet, it any of them committed a crime in Sweden, they cannot be deported to the country because apparently it's too dangerous for them. Now instead of fixing the loopholes in the refugee convention and ECHR, the flow of events will be political parties taking the countries out of the UN Refugee convention and ECHR, which is a shame because they both have lot of good things going for them. " Ironically the agreement doesn't say a port in your own country. Just a safe port. Build a port on an evacuated island. Drop them off there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect.
The rnli can use the funds how they want.
But they shouldn't simply expect the kind hearted donations to fund bringing back migrants.
Calling it tantamount to manslaughter is embarrassing. You're better than that
So what would you call refusing to go to the aid of a sinking vessel meaning the people onboard are sure to drown?
I am better than that. Only scum would withhold donations from the RNLI because they have sometimes saved the “wrong lives”.
True colours showing their Morley. Very disappointing.
The rnli isn't a taxi service.
It's not there to pick up economic migra ts who pay more to the criminal gangs for this opportunity than the rnli receives from many many many individual donors.
The rnli is a charity. People are rightly able to withhold their donations.
Sadly some scum compare them to people who murder others.
Quite reprehensible."Fuck me comprehension skills have fallen lately on this site. Go back and read what was actually said. You understand what “condone” means I take it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mansalughter
You might think leaving people to drown is funny. Personally I think if a person disagrees with saving lives and stops their donations on that basis then it means they are condoning manslaughter. Laugh all you want Morley, says something about you that deeply disappoints me. While we disagree on much, you had my respect.
The rnli can use the funds how they want.
But they shouldn't simply expect the kind hearted donations to fund bringing back migrants.
Calling it tantamount to manslaughter is embarrassing. You're better than that
So what would you call refusing to go to the aid of a sinking vessel meaning the people onboard are sure to drown?
I am better than that. Only scum would withhold donations from the RNLI because they have sometimes saved the “wrong lives”.
True colours showing their Morley. Very disappointing.
The rnli isn't a taxi service.
It's not there to pick up economic migra ts who pay more to the criminal gangs for this opportunity than the rnli receives from many many many individual donors.
The rnli is a charity. People are rightly able to withhold their donations.
Sadly some scum compare them to people who murder others.
Quite reprehensible.
Fuck me comprehension skills have fallen lately on this site. Go back and read what was actually said.
You understand what “condone” means I take it?".I do. The ipinion is still just as ignorant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Maritime law requires any ship/boat to go to the aid of any other. The RNLI is not political. It is humane. Makes you proud to be British!" Excellent post! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for inspiring me to donate to the RNLI. There will forever be disagreement on the politics, but saving lives of people, no matter where they’re from, should always be a priority IMHO. " Great post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for inspiring me to donate to the RNLI. There will forever be disagreement on the politics, but saving lives of people, no matter where they’re from, should always be a priority IMHO. Great post " I agree! You can be swiming 20 metres from the shore and get caught in a riptide. Then you will need the RNLI. Because they are a charity the do not discriminate who they save. Just imagine a Conservative government agency influenced by a vocal minority. The shout goes up - "There are people drowning near the rocks!!" Govt lifeboat coxwain - "Who are they?" Bystander - "A pensioner, a child and an unemployed woman" Govt Coxwain - "I am afraid they are not contributing enough to Britains wealth creation to justify the expenditure of launching the boat"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI is an excellent national organisation that is, thankfully, independent of Government. So, when those zenophobic people withdraw funding, because the RNLI have saved the lives of migrants, they are also risking the lives of fishermen in the north sea, sailers in the solent, children in Blackpool, d*unks who fall in the Thames, etc etc. Those who man the boats are a credit and an example to humanity. They do it for free, often risking their own lives, because it is the right thing to do. Over the 200 years of their existence they must have saved the lives of countless murders, child abusers, robbers, wife beaters along with saints, children, philanthropists, etc etc. I for one don't want them trying to guess the acceptability of those they set out to save to the Cancel Culture anti migrant mob before they save their lives. Let the Government do what they are supposed to do; and the RNLI continue to save the lives of those in peril on the sea. Eloquently put. I was trying to rationalise with a forumrite (or should that be forumewrong?) the other day about their cancellation of RNLI funding. I said that their withdrawl affects all people who might need the RNLI, not just migrants. Alas, they didn't seem to give a shit. Migrants use libraries. Perhaps they should stop using those too. Oh and doctors. And shops. And the fire service. And go after the police too, as they help everyone, including migrants." That was me and have move my donations to a homeless charity. But that dose not stop you putting donations there way. Donations are just that a donation. Sum charity I support some I don't why is moving my donation from one charity to another so wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most leisure boat owners on the south coast have got rid of their talk-through radio sets and now will only use satellite phone and gps systems, backed up by distress flares. It's incredibly dangerous to approach a boat so overcrowded because the sheer weight of people will sink you if they all try to board you in panic. Commercial/working vessels still use theirs. Bess x" Rubbish. Everyone uses “talk-through radio sets” as you call them - or VHF radios as everyone else calls them. Why make stuff up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI is an excellent national organisation that is, thankfully, independent of Government. So, when those zenophobic people withdraw funding, because the RNLI have saved the lives of migrants, they are also risking the lives of fishermen in the north sea, sailers in the solent, children in Blackpool, d*unks who fall in the Thames, etc etc. Those who man the boats are a credit and an example to humanity. They do it for free, often risking their own lives, because it is the right thing to do. Over the 200 years of their existence they must have saved the lives of countless murders, child abusers, robbers, wife beaters along with saints, children, philanthropists, etc etc. I for one don't want them trying to guess the acceptability of those they set out to save to the Cancel Culture anti migrant mob before they save their lives. Let the Government do what they are supposed to do; and the RNLI continue to save the lives of those in peril on the sea. " If it is so excellent it it right that the CEO gets £160k a year salary I'm sure there not skint if they can pay there top dog top money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most leisure boat owners on the south coast have got rid of their talk-through radio sets and now will only use satellite phone and gps systems, backed up by distress flares. It's incredibly dangerous to approach a boat so overcrowded because the sheer weight of people will sink you if they all try to board you in panic. Commercial/working vessels still use theirs. Bess x Rubbish. Everyone uses “talk-through radio sets” as you call them - or VHF radios as everyone else calls them. Why make stuff up?" Lol - says someone from the north west. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most leisure boat owners on the south coast have got rid of their talk-through radio sets and now will only use satellite phone and gps systems, backed up by distress flares. It's incredibly dangerous to approach a boat so overcrowded because the sheer weight of people will sink you if they all try to board you in panic. Commercial/working vessels still use theirs. Bess x Rubbish. Everyone uses “talk-through radio sets” as you call them - or VHF radios as everyone else calls them. Why make stuff up?" Yer you need a VHF radio to talk to the harbour master. Or you did till not long ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most leisure boat owners on the south coast have got rid of their talk-through radio sets and now will only use satellite phone and gps systems, backed up by distress flares. It's incredibly dangerous to approach a boat so overcrowded because the sheer weight of people will sink you if they all try to board you in panic. Commercial/working vessels still use theirs. Bess x Rubbish. Everyone uses “talk-through radio sets” as you call them - or VHF radios as everyone else calls them. Why make stuff up? Yer you need a VHF radio to talk to the harbour master. Or you did till not long ago." I specified leisure boats, as in privately owned. You're not obliged to talk to the harbour master. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most leisure boat owners on the south coast have got rid of their talk-through radio sets and now will only use satellite phone and gps systems, backed up by distress flares. It's incredibly dangerous to approach a boat so overcrowded because the sheer weight of people will sink you if they all try to board you in panic. Commercial/working vessels still use theirs. Bess x Rubbish. Everyone uses “talk-through radio sets” as you call them - or VHF radios as everyone else calls them. Why make stuff up? Lol - says someone from the north west." I have sailed across the channel and up the Solent three times in the last six weeks alone. Sailing is my thing. You are talking rubbish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. I've seen such statements on here before about stopping donations due to the migrants. These RNLI people do a fantastic job but as long as they rely on donations then they can't avoid people exercising their right to stop donating. I feel comparing someone who stops donations the same as manslaughter ect is wrong though. I have never given to the RNLI so does that make me bad? Personally I feel they should get enough funding from government and any donations on top are all for the good" So in the same thought dose that mean anyone how dose not donate is committing manslaughter! And if you don't support the Hart foundation you should not be intitald to Hart surgery. I could go on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most leisure boat owners on the south coast have got rid of their talk-through radio sets and now will only use satellite phone and gps systems, backed up by distress flares. It's incredibly dangerous to approach a boat so overcrowded because the sheer weight of people will sink you if they all try to board you in panic. Commercial/working vessels still use theirs. Bess x Rubbish. Everyone uses “talk-through radio sets” as you call them - or VHF radios as everyone else calls them. Why make stuff up? Lol - says someone from the north west. I have sailed across the channel and up the Solent three times in the last six weeks alone. Sailing is my thing. You are talking rubbish." Try and get through the lock gate at Eastbourne without talking to them. That said I have given up my boat as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter " I get the comments if they donate but do they mmmm.. so more guilty as never chiped in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for inspiring me to donate to the RNLI. There will forever be disagreement on the politics, but saving lives of people, no matter where they’re from, should always be a priority IMHO. " This! Leave the who's who to the officials and Governments of all countries involved. These are the institutions that are currently failing in this issue, not the RNLI. I will also be starting a regular donation.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. I've seen such statements on here before about stopping donations due to the migrants. These RNLI people do a fantastic job but as long as they rely on donations then they can't avoid people exercising their right to stop donating. I feel comparing someone who stops donations the same as manslaughter ect is wrong though. I have never given to the RNLI so does that make me bad? Personally I feel they should get enough funding from government and any donations on top are all for the good So in the same thought dose that mean anyone how dose not donate is committing manslaughter! And if you don't support the Hart foundation you should not be intitald to Hart surgery. I could go on." Holy moly people. I assume you know the difference between committing manslaughter and condoning manslaughter! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for inspiring me to donate to the RNLI. There will forever be disagreement on the politics, but saving lives of people, no matter where they’re from, should always be a priority IMHO. This! Leave the who's who to the officials and Governments of all countries involved. These are the institutions that are currently failing in this issue, not the RNLI. I will also be starting a regular donation. "Not living by the sea, I didn't used to put much thought into the RNLI. Which is my mistake. Then when Farage started to critise them for saving the lives of foreigners, I started to donate regularly. Maybe if all decent people donate a little, it will make up for the lack of donations from those who want foreigners to drown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter " Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved "Play nice and you can 
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The RNLI is an emergency service not a taxi service and these migrant boats need to be stopped going to sea. The people who are aiding, whether criminally or through well intentioned actions, are the ones who you should apply your manslaughter label to." Should the RNLI ask sinking boats where they’re from and their intentions before saving the human lives aboard? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved
Play nice and you can
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that!"Why does it seem sensible to say all of that to someone who you know won't say it? I sometimes act like a dick, but I try not to do any of the other things. First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything. Plenty of philanthropists have turned out to be absolute wrong uns, does that mean anyone who donates to the same charities that they did condone their bad behaviour? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The RNLI is an emergency service not a taxi service and these migrant boats need to be stopped going to sea. The people who are aiding, whether criminally or through well intentioned actions, are the ones who you should apply your manslaughter label to. Should the RNLI ask sinking boats where they’re from and their intentions before saving the human lives aboard? " In this instance, I would have expected the French to have handled the situation on their own. They don’t have a great track record but nonetheless, this should not have needed the RNLI to get involved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved
Play nice and you can
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that!
Why does it seem sensible to say all of that to someone who you know won't say it?
I sometimes act like a dick, but I try not to do any of the other things.
First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.
Plenty of philanthropists have turned out to be absolute wrong uns, does that mean anyone who donates to the same charities that they did condone their bad behaviour?"And yet you them misrepresent what the actual topic is and what I said. The topic is some people are stopping their donations on the basis that RNLI have been helping small boats of illegal immigrants in danger. And I said... “I think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Maritime law requires any ship/boat to go to the aid of any other. The RNLI is not political. It is humane.” It seems a few posters on here are either having comprehension difficulties or are simply dishing out faux outrage to cause an argument. The key part of my first post was “...people who stop donating on that basis...” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better!" think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. " Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""When are people going to actually realise that all this agitation about boats, barges, hotels and the RNLI is all confected and engineered by the Conservative Party in Government" I am sorry but, all the above is complete fantasy, otherwise, real proof would readily be available. Oh...."confected"??!" Did you read the rest of the post? They closed down safe and legal routes for all but Ukrainian refugees. They denied the Afghans the same type of route that was made available to the Ukrainians There are no longer any overseas processing centres. The French even offered the U.K. the land and the security to build one in Calais. The IK Government declined. Robert Jenrick admitted the other day on National TV that delaying processing in the U.K. was being done intentionally. I really hope when Labour get into power next year they set up an enquiry into how this entire asylum system has been intentionally mismanaged and that all of those currently (and recently) in office end up in prison for multiple counts of manslaughter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening." Where does the manslaughter come in though? Who is the mansalughtering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved
Play nice and you can
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that!
Why does it seem sensible to say all of that to someone who you know won't say it?
I sometimes act like a dick, but I try not to do any of the other things.
First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.
Plenty of philanthropists have turned out to be absolute wrong uns, does that mean anyone who donates to the same charities that they did condone their bad behaviour?
And yet you them misrepresent what the actual topic is and what I said.
The topic is some people are stopping their donations on the basis that RNLI have been helping small boats of illegal immigrants in danger. And I said...
“I think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter.
Maritime law requires any ship/boat to go to the aid of any other. The RNLI is not political. It is humane.”
It seems a few posters on here are either having comprehension difficulties or are simply dishing out faux outrage to cause an argument.
The key part of my first post was “...people who stop donating on that basis...”"Did I misrepresent or are you just not interested in anyone who has a differing opinion? In my mind, it's the latter. Why? People who continue to donate to charities who also accept the donations of 'wrong uns' condone the 'wrong uns' behaviour. Some of which is fucking abhorrent btw. I guess you chose to ignore that part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. The news outlets are full of stories asking migrants why they are here, mostly for a better life, some fleeing but mostly to earn better money and a better standard of living. this is why I struggle when people actually see every person as a victim that crossed the channel. That sort of misaligned thinking isn't making anything better, it makes it worse. he openly admitted he wasn't fleeing persecution but believed it was his right to free movement for a job. He should be deported immediately." He's a child!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. The news outlets are full of stories asking migrants why they are here, mostly for a better life, some fleeing but mostly to earn better money and a better standard of living. this is why I struggle when people actually see every person as a victim that crossed the channel. That sort of misaligned thinking isn't making anything better, it makes it worse. he openly admitted he wasn't fleeing persecution but believed it was his right to free movement for a job. He should be deported immediately. He's a child!!" Hes not a child anymore. And being a child should not be a reason to simply let any one into the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. Where does the manslaughter come in though? Who is the mansalughtering." Well, for example. Apparently (according the Sky News) six of those who died in the channel a couple of days ago were Afghans. If any of these people had worked as translators, or had helped the U.K. in any capacity during the conflict there then the Government can reasonably be asked why they were making such a perilous crossing when the Government had promised asylum to everyone who would be at risk because of the help that they gave us in that conflict. There are so many layers of fault on our part in much of what is happening but it seems that people just don’t want to know about the wars that we have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan that have caused mass population displacements. I didn’t agree with the Iraq wars, but we have collective responsibility as a country to clean up the mess that the country was partly instrumental in the making of. That’s just being decent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. " Therein lies the argument to processing centres being located close to the places where people are being displaced. The Foreign Office and Home office once worked together creating local intelligence networks that could relatively accurately attest to the truth of claims being made by people claiming asylum. Once that person has travelled 5,009 miles and rocked up on the beach in S England try getting a newly employed Home office recruit on minimum wage to check a story. Is it any wonder that there is a backlog? The whole thing has been broken by blind ideological thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. Therein lies the argument to processing centres being located close to the places where people are being displaced. The Foreign Office and Home office once worked together creating local intelligence networks that could relatively accurately attest to the truth of claims being made by people claiming asylum. Once that person has travelled 5,009 miles and rocked up on the beach in S England try getting a newly employed Home office recruit on minimum wage to check a story. Is it any wonder that there is a backlog? The whole thing has been broken by blind ideological thinking." If there is a processing centre closer to them and it rejects someone's application, what stops them from taking the boats instead and trying this route? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. Where does the manslaughter come in though? Who is the mansalughtering." Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved
Play nice and you can
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that!
Why does it seem sensible to say all of that to someone who you know won't say it?
I sometimes act like a dick, but I try not to do any of the other things.
First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.
Plenty of philanthropists have turned out to be absolute wrong uns, does that mean anyone who donates to the same charities that they did condone their bad behaviour?
And yet you them misrepresent what the actual topic is and what I said.
The topic is some people are stopping their donations on the basis that RNLI have been helping small boats of illegal immigrants in danger. And I said...
“I think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter.
Maritime law requires any ship/boat to go to the aid of any other. The RNLI is not political. It is humane.”
It seems a few posters on here are either having comprehension difficulties or are simply dishing out faux outrage to cause an argument.
The key part of my first post was “...people who stop donating on that basis...”
Did I misrepresent or are you just not interested in anyone who has a differing opinion?
In my mind, it's the latter.
Why? People who continue to donate to charities who also accept the donations of 'wrong uns' condone the 'wrong uns' behaviour. Some of which is fucking abhorrent btw.
I guess you chose to ignore that part."When I am clearly only talking about donors who stop donating on the basis that the RNLI is saving lives of illegal immigrants and then you say... “First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.” That feels like misrepresenting. I totally agree with your first sentence. But for the people I am specifically talking about, I disagree with your second sentence. It is only that group I am focused on clearly! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening." If the boat is in so much danger. Why dose it set to sea. Why is it generically that they call the RNLI just in side British water. Small boats and the gangs are easy to stop but no one wants to let them just get on a ferry. Then the RNLI would not be needed. Also not all RNLI are Volunteer most are but not all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved
Play nice and you can
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that!
Why does it seem sensible to say all of that to someone who you know won't say it?
I sometimes act like a dick, but I try not to do any of the other things.
First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.
Plenty of philanthropists have turned out to be absolute wrong uns, does that mean anyone who donates to the same charities that they did condone their bad behaviour?
And yet you them misrepresent what the actual topic is and what I said.
The topic is some people are stopping their donations on the basis that RNLI have been helping small boats of illegal immigrants in danger. And I said...
“I think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter.
Maritime law requires any ship/boat to go to the aid of any other. The RNLI is not political. It is humane.”
It seems a few posters on here are either having comprehension difficulties or are simply dishing out faux outrage to cause an argument.
The key part of my first post was “...people who stop donating on that basis...”
Did I misrepresent or are you just not interested in anyone who has a differing opinion?
In my mind, it's the latter.
Why? People who continue to donate to charities who also accept the donations of 'wrong uns' condone the 'wrong uns' behaviour. Some of which is fucking abhorrent btw.
I guess you chose to ignore that part.
When I am clearly only talking about donors who stop donating on the basis that the RNLI is saving lives of illegal immigrants and then you say...
“First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.”
That feels like misrepresenting. I totally agree with your first sentence. But for the people I am specifically talking about, I disagree with your second sentence. It is only that group I am focused on clearly! "So surly by not supporting the RNLI you also condone the same outcome or are more guilty than someone that has put money in over the years. How do you differentiate. So if you where to find the tories guilty in the same context evey donar would be guilty. WOW Next you will be saying I'm murdering people cose I have stopped donating blood as you now need an appointment and that dose not fit in with my way of life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. Therein lies the argument to processing centres being located close to the places where people are being displaced. The Foreign Office and Home office once worked together creating local intelligence networks that could relatively accurately attest to the truth of claims being made by people claiming asylum. Once that person has travelled 5,009 miles and rocked up on the beach in S England try getting a newly employed Home office recruit on minimum wage to check a story. Is it any wonder that there is a backlog? The whole thing has been broken by blind ideological thinking. If there is a processing centre closer to them and it rejects someone's application, what stops them from taking the boats instead and trying this route?" Why do you think there are boats? Come on… prove that you have been paying attention. The boats started when this government closed down all safe and legal routes meaning that the only way to claim asylum was to get to the U.K. somehow. Conventional travel routes were obviously not possible so the boat opportunists filled a gap in the market. If a person has been denied U.K. asylum in the Lebanon for example, what purpose would there be in travelling across Europe, trying to find a way across the border knowing that your asylum claim has already been denied and you will be immediately deported? This is how it worked prior to this Government closing down safe routes and hence this is why the boats are a relatively new phenomena. Actions and consequences huh?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. If the boat is in so much danger. Why dose it set to sea. " The boat only encounters danger when it's in the sea. Prior to launch, the danger is minimal. " Why is it generically that they call the RNLI just in side British water. " It's not, the French counterparts are often called too. They were in these recent incidents. " Small boats and the gangs are easy to stop but no one wants to let them just get on a ferry. " No one wants to let the gangs get on the ferry? Not sure what this means. " Then the RNLI would not be needed. Also not all RNLI are Volunteer most are but not all." The RNLI is needed for all people who are at risk in the sea. They most definitely are needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved
Play nice and you can
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that!
Why does it seem sensible to say all of that to someone who you know won't say it?
I sometimes act like a dick, but I try not to do any of the other things.
First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.
Plenty of philanthropists have turned out to be absolute wrong uns, does that mean anyone who donates to the same charities that they did condone their bad behaviour?
And yet you them misrepresent what the actual topic is and what I said.
The topic is some people are stopping their donations on the basis that RNLI have been helping small boats of illegal immigrants in danger. And I said...
“I think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter.
Maritime law requires any ship/boat to go to the aid of any other. The RNLI is not political. It is humane.”
It seems a few posters on here are either having comprehension difficulties or are simply dishing out faux outrage to cause an argument.
The key part of my first post was “...people who stop donating on that basis...”
Did I misrepresent or are you just not interested in anyone who has a differing opinion?
In my mind, it's the latter.
Why? People who continue to donate to charities who also accept the donations of 'wrong uns' condone the 'wrong uns' behaviour. Some of which is fucking abhorrent btw.
I guess you chose to ignore that part.
When I am clearly only talking about donors who stop donating on the basis that the RNLI is saving lives of illegal immigrants and then you say...
“First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.”
That feels like misrepresenting. I totally agree with your first sentence. But for the people I am specifically talking about, I disagree with your second sentence. It is only that group I am focused on clearly!
So surly by not supporting the RNLI you also condone the same outcome or are more guilty than someone that has put money in over the years.
How do you differentiate.
So if you where to find the tories guilty in the same context evey donar would be guilty.
WOW
Next you will be saying I'm murdering people cose I have stopped donating blood as you now need an appointment and that dose not fit in with my way of life."In fairness, in the other thread you said you wanted asylum seekers to die in the sea. And so you stopped donating to the RNLI. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. Therein lies the argument to processing centres being located close to the places where people are being displaced. The Foreign Office and Home office once worked together creating local intelligence networks that could relatively accurately attest to the truth of claims being made by people claiming asylum. Once that person has travelled 5,009 miles and rocked up on the beach in S England try getting a newly employed Home office recruit on minimum wage to check a story. Is it any wonder that there is a backlog? The whole thing has been broken by blind ideological thinking. If there is a processing centre closer to them and it rejects someone's application, what stops them from taking the boats instead and trying this route? Why do you think there are boats? Come on… prove that you have been paying attention. The boats started when this government closed down all safe and legal routes meaning that the only way to claim asylum was to get to the U.K. somehow. Conventional travel routes were obviously not possible so the boat opportunists filled a gap in the market. If a person has been denied U.K. asylum in the Lebanon for example, what purpose would there be in travelling across Europe, trying to find a way across the border knowing that your asylum claim has already been denied and you will be immediately deported? This is how it worked prior to this Government closing down safe routes and hence this is why the boats are a relatively new phenomena. Actions and consequences huh??" Have to disagree the boats started when more people where getting found in lorrys and drivers were made more accountable so the method changed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. If the boat is in so much danger. Why dose it set to sea. The boat only encounters danger when it's in the sea. Prior to launch, the danger is minimal. Why is it generically that they call the RNLI just in side British water. It's not, the French counterparts are often called too. They were in these recent incidents. Small boats and the gangs are easy to stop but no one wants to let them just get on a ferry. No one wants to let the gangs get on the ferry? Not sure what this means. Then the RNLI would not be needed. Also not all RNLI are Volunteer most are but not all. The RNLI is needed for all people who are at risk in the sea. They most definitely are needed. " No Johnny what I said was if people want to get to the UK let them get on a ferry then the gangs would go out of business and people would have safe passage. The small boats is gust a mess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved
Play nice and you can
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that!
Why does it seem sensible to say all of that to someone who you know won't say it?
I sometimes act like a dick, but I try not to do any of the other things.
First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.
Plenty of philanthropists have turned out to be absolute wrong uns, does that mean anyone who donates to the same charities that they did condone their bad behaviour?
And yet you them misrepresent what the actual topic is and what I said.
The topic is some people are stopping their donations on the basis that RNLI have been helping small boats of illegal immigrants in danger. And I said...
“I think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter.
Maritime law requires any ship/boat to go to the aid of any other. The RNLI is not political. It is humane.”
It seems a few posters on here are either having comprehension difficulties or are simply dishing out faux outrage to cause an argument.
The key part of my first post was “...people who stop donating on that basis...”
Did I misrepresent or are you just not interested in anyone who has a differing opinion?
In my mind, it's the latter.
Why? People who continue to donate to charities who also accept the donations of 'wrong uns' condone the 'wrong uns' behaviour. Some of which is fucking abhorrent btw.
I guess you chose to ignore that part.
When I am clearly only talking about donors who stop donating on the basis that the RNLI is saving lives of illegal immigrants and then you say...
“First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.”
That feels like misrepresenting. I totally agree with your first sentence. But for the people I am specifically talking about, I disagree with your second sentence. It is only that group I am focused on clearly!
So surly by not supporting the RNLI you also condone the same outcome or are more guilty than someone that has put money in over the years.
How do you differentiate.
So if you where to find the tories guilty in the same context evey donar would be guilty.
WOW
Next you will be saying I'm murdering people cose I have stopped donating blood as you now need an appointment and that dose not fit in with my way of life.
In fairness, in the other thread you said you wanted asylum seekers to die in the sea. And so you stopped donating to the RNLI."To that I said if the first boats where sunk in shallow water on the French side no more would try. But like with all things if you know someone it has worked for you will try it yourself. Do you think if not 1 boat made it they would still try? No would they try something different yes they want a better life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know, a thought struck me. There are plenty of seaworthy vessel out there, be they national navy vessels or merchant sea vessels, even independents. If we really want to stop people drowning at sea in unsuitable vessels, and break the criminal gangs in to the bargain, it wouldn't be too difficult to offer free and safe passage for some vessels and passengers, would it ? Collect from Port A, drop off at port B. No one drowns. They can then get to where they need to go and commence the arrival process / assessment. " My point exactly and could you not process some on route if they are legitimate and point b dose not have to be the same point all round the UK could be point B. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are free to use their own funds as they wish to. There are some people who reflect the worst aspects of our race, who care little for the suffering and potential loss of life, that others face, which is sickeningly repulsive. " I'll take that is aimed at me. Was expecting it but do you dig deep and support if not in my book that's worse and more repulsive. Like not leving a good tip when you have a meal out. Or you buy your shopping but don't put something in the food bank on the way out or not giving the guy out side Aldi the pound out you trolly when you have just purchased wine beer chocolate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. If the boat is in so much danger. Why dose it set to sea. The boat only encounters danger when it's in the sea. Prior to launch, the danger is minimal. Why is it generically that they call the RNLI just in side British water. It's not, the French counterparts are often called too. They were in these recent incidents. Small boats and the gangs are easy to stop but no one wants to let them just get on a ferry. No one wants to let the gangs get on the ferry? Not sure what this means. Then the RNLI would not be needed. Also not all RNLI are Volunteer most are but not all. The RNLI is needed for all people who are at risk in the sea. They most definitely are needed. No Johnny what I said was if people want to get to the UK let them get on a ferry then the gangs would go out of business and people would have safe passage. The small boats is gust a mess. " I agree. Let them board the ferrris. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can't argue with an empty bank account..." Except nobody is arguing with an empty bank account so what is your point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I have so much to say, shame I'm not allowed to get involved
Play nice and you can
But please make sure there is no misrepresentation of what someone else says, be clear on the difference between condoning manslaughter or committing it, recognise why sometimes it helps (or doesn’t) to use an analogy, ensure you don’t change the word used to “murder”, or generally act like a dick. I know YOU won’t Feisty but it just seems sensible to say all that!
Why does it seem sensible to say all of that to someone who you know won't say it?
I sometimes act like a dick, but I try not to do any of the other things.
First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.
Plenty of philanthropists have turned out to be absolute wrong uns, does that mean anyone who donates to the same charities that they did condone their bad behaviour?
And yet you them misrepresent what the actual topic is and what I said.
The topic is some people are stopping their donations on the basis that RNLI have been helping small boats of illegal immigrants in danger. And I said...
“I think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter.
Maritime law requires any ship/boat to go to the aid of any other. The RNLI is not political. It is humane.”
It seems a few posters on here are either having comprehension difficulties or are simply dishing out faux outrage to cause an argument.
The key part of my first post was “...people who stop donating on that basis...”
Did I misrepresent or are you just not interested in anyone who has a differing opinion?
In my mind, it's the latter.
Why? People who continue to donate to charities who also accept the donations of 'wrong uns' condone the 'wrong uns' behaviour. Some of which is fucking abhorrent btw.
I guess you chose to ignore that part.
When I am clearly only talking about donors who stop donating on the basis that the RNLI is saving lives of illegal immigrants and then you say...
“First things first, the RNLI is a charity and anyone can remove their donations for any reason at any time. That's does not mean they condone anything.”
That feels like misrepresenting. I totally agree with your first sentence. But for the people I am specifically talking about, I disagree with your second sentence. It is only that group I am focused on clearly!
So surly by not supporting the RNLI you also condone the same outcome or are more guilty than someone that has put money in over the years.
How do you differentiate.
So if you where to find the tories guilty in the same context evey donar would be guilty.
WOW
Next you will be saying I'm murdering people cose I have stopped donating blood as you now need an appointment and that dose not fit in with my way of life."If your stated reason for no longer giving blood was because you did not want your blood to be used for a certain group of people. Then yes I would argue that reason sucks. I would not use the word “murder” just I haven’t at all in this RNLI issue either. How people choose to donate to charity is 100% their prerogative. I would also argue it is a private matter as boasting about it seems like virtue signalling. Equally a decision to stop donating is completely up to the individual, but again I would say a private matter. Some people have chosen to politicise their decision to stop donating to the RNLI because they do not agree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger because they are carrying illegal immigrants/asylum seekers. Those people then seem upset that others do not agree with them. If you stick your head above the parapet, don’t be surprised when people take a shot at it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter." The RNLI doesn't have a legal duty of care. Any vessel on the sea must come to the aid of mariners in distress, but there is no such duty for people ashore to launch a rescue mission. The RNLI is a charity, not a government institution, and it has no legal responsibilities or duties to perform. But let's ignore the 'manslaughter' issue for the moment. The RNLI often picks up people who aren't in immediate danger, and it drops them off at the nearest beach, instead of at an immigration port. If people are withholding their donations in protest at these specific actions, would you consider that to be the exercising of a valid right to protest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. The RNLI doesn't have a legal duty of care. Any vessel on the sea must come to the aid of mariners in distress, but there is no such duty for people ashore to launch a rescue mission. The RNLI is a charity, not a government institution, and it has no legal responsibilities or duties to perform. But let's ignore the 'manslaughter' issue for the moment. The RNLI often picks up people who aren't in immediate danger, and it drops them off at the nearest beach, instead of at an immigration port. If people are withholding their donations in protest at these specific actions, would you consider that to be the exercising of a valid right to protest?" I will happily use a different word to condoning manslaughter if you have a suggestion. So how would you describe it when a donor’s stated intent is to no longer fund the RNLI because they are going to the aid of boats in trouble because they have the wrong people on board? What word would describes knowingly refusing aid to a vessel in distress that is likely to cause death by drowning even though you have the specialist equipment and skilled people to intervene to prevent that death? On your second point. Do they? Can you provide evidence to support that claim? You say “often” so can you quantify that claim? You say “no legal responsibilities or duties to perform” in which case if they are just dropping people at the beach, then what is it they are doing wrong in that case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. Therein lies the argument to processing centres being located close to the places where people are being displaced. The Foreign Office and Home office once worked together creating local intelligence networks that could relatively accurately attest to the truth of claims being made by people claiming asylum. Once that person has travelled 5,009 miles and rocked up on the beach in S England try getting a newly employed Home office recruit on minimum wage to check a story. Is it any wonder that there is a backlog? The whole thing has been broken by blind ideological thinking. If there is a processing centre closer to them and it rejects someone's application, what stops them from taking the boats instead and trying this route? Why do you think there are boats? Come on… prove that you have been paying attention. The boats started when this government closed down all safe and legal routes meaning that the only way to claim asylum was to get to the U.K. somehow. Conventional travel routes were obviously not possible so the boat opportunists filled a gap in the market. If a person has been denied U.K. asylum in the Lebanon for example, what purpose would there be in travelling across Europe, trying to find a way across the border knowing that your asylum claim has already been denied and you will be immediately deported? This is how it worked prior to this Government closing down safe routes and hence this is why the boats are a relatively new phenomena. Actions and consequences huh??" The loopholes have been identified recently and are being exploited. How many countries allow applications from, before that? If someone's application is denied, they can still throw away their identities and show up in UK, like most of them do now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. Therein lies the argument to processing centres being located close to the places where people are being displaced. The Foreign Office and Home office once worked together creating local intelligence networks that could relatively accurately attest to the truth of claims being made by people claiming asylum. Once that person has travelled 5,009 miles and rocked up on the beach in S England try getting a newly employed Home office recruit on minimum wage to check a story. Is it any wonder that there is a backlog? The whole thing has been broken by blind ideological thinking." What happens when they get rejected in France? They don't attempt to enter the uk anymore? Is that the logic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. Where does the manslaughter come in though? Who is the mansalughtering. Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter." What's the negligence side? Are you thena causing the rnli of gross negligence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. Therein lies the argument to processing centres being located close to the places where people are being displaced. The Foreign Office and Home office once worked together creating local intelligence networks that could relatively accurately attest to the truth of claims being made by people claiming asylum. Once that person has travelled 5,009 miles and rocked up on the beach in S England try getting a newly employed Home office recruit on minimum wage to check a story. Is it any wonder that there is a backlog? The whole thing has been broken by blind ideological thinking. If there is a processing centre closer to them and it rejects someone's application, what stops them from taking the boats instead and trying this route? Why do you think there are boats? Come on… prove that you have been paying attention. The boats started when this government closed down all safe and legal routes meaning that the only way to claim asylum was to get to the U.K. somehow. Conventional travel routes were obviously not possible so the boat opportunists filled a gap in the market. If a person has been denied U.K. asylum in the Lebanon for example, what purpose would there be in travelling across Europe, trying to find a way across the border knowing that your asylum claim has already been denied and you will be immediately deported? This is how it worked prior to this Government closing down safe routes and hence this is why the boats are a relatively new phenomena. Actions and consequences huh??" .the uk government never closed down the safe legal routes. This has been explained in multiple threads kn here they are open. They can still buy visas and tickets. And there are genuine routes for applicants to come here from countries the uk deemed asylum can be requested from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. Where does the manslaughter come in though? Who is the mansalughtering. Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. What's the negligence side? Are you thena causing the rnli of gross negligence?" I am not accusing the RNLI of anything and thank God this will never happen. The RNLI strategy and vision has clear stated objectives including: “Every life matters We value every life and look to prevent loss of life, whoever it may be and wherever they may be in trouble.” But the former donors who have decided to politicise their decision are clearly saying they want the RNLI to not follow their stated objectives because these former donors do not want the RNLI to go to the aid of these boats. That can only mean these donors are happy for the people on board to drown. How would you describe that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never thought I'd see the day people became so deranged they accused people withholding charitable donations as akin to manslaughter Show me where that was said? Or for that matter who used the word murder except you? Deliberate misrepresentation is a bad look Morley. A typical gaslighting technique. Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read. You need to do better! think the people who stop donating on that basis should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that they therefore condone manslaughter. Whats the manslaughter aspect then? Because what are they condoning? Charitable donations are not a right. Removing funding from the RNLI on the basis that you disagree with them coming to the aid of boats in danger of sinking because they are carrying illegal immigrants means you are condoning letting the boat sink with the inevitability that some or all of the people on board will drown/die! Those deaths are preventable and there are specially trained people with the equipment to save them. But some people want to stop that from happening. Where does the manslaughter come in though? Who is the mansalughtering. Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. What's the negligence side? Are you thena causing the rnli of gross negligence? I am not accusing the RNLI of anything and thank God this will never happen. The RNLI strategy and vision has clear stated objectives including: “Every life matters We value every life and look to prevent loss of life, whoever it may be and wherever they may be in trouble.” But the former donors who have decided to politicise their decision are clearly saying they want the RNLI to not follow their stated objectives because these former donors do not want the RNLI to go to the aid of these boats. That can only mean these donors are happy for the people on board to drown. How would you describe that?" So what's your point on manslaughter? Who's causing it. In your sentence it can only be the donors or the rnli | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn." I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They aren't asking the rnli to choose who it goes out for. They are simply withdrawing their funds." That is patently untrue. Just refer to the OP. They are explicitly saying why they are no longer going to donate and it is because RNLI have been going to the aid of boats with illegal migrants/asylum seekers. Ergo they do not want the RNLI to do this. Ergo they are happy for the people on those boats to drown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can't argue with an empty bank account..." So you never buy things you could go without to help someone else like alcohol and sweets all luxury items. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble?" I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please?" You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... "“Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter." Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. "the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores." Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die! "Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters. The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores. Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter. 4th time of asking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking."Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing. "It's not a technicality. You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations Who is committing the mansalughter? It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point. You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one. Now answer the question. Or retract your statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement."No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one. Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly? Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A couple of years ago, I reviewed my charitable donations. I have actually increased my donation amount but are focusing solely on charities that don't pay vast salaries to CEO's. etc. That's my conscious decision but if people see me as having blood on my hands, then so be it." I think that is a very valid reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?"So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter? You're a hoot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
"Tedious. I will repost the statement... “Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative.“ If YOU do not think the definition of manslaughter fits then suggest an alternative. BTW you didn’t answer a question!!! Funny that! Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
"As far as I am aware, all of the passengers board the boats willingly, even pay for the privilege, in the full knowledge of the risks. Surely it is the French who have the responsibility to ensure that all craft carrying paying passengers departing from their shores are seaworthy and properly equipped with safety equipment, just as the UK did when the ferries were manned by inexperienced crew. It is ironic that the French have the obligation to aid those in danger enshrined in law and clearly do nothing to prevent these boats from leaving. That is where the blame lies, and it is those in a position to stop the boats departing who should receive our condemnation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whilst I have recently been away last week i visited a RNLI station and had a look around and a chat with the volunteers. Later that night when I was out with a friend in a bar we saw one of the volunteers and had a drink and a chat. He said that the RNLI donations are decreasing, especially around the south of the country as the public do not agree with the RNLI rescuing the migrants out at sea that are trying to cross the channel. He said that volunteers on the south coast have been verbally abused and he and others feel that the RNLI shouldn’t be used for this. He also said that in the last 18 months with the news reporting that more and more migrants are coming in and the RNLI are picking them up they have had people come into stations and say they are stopping donations as they do not fund the service for this. Apparently the RNLI have asked for the media not to emphasise the RNLI as much when reporting migrants and it’s costing them a lot of money in lost donations. When i was told this I was a bit shocked and it’s something I had never heard off on the news. I did a Google search and it turns out this has been a problem for a while. The rnli are there to save lives. They responders should receive verbal abuse. They also don't simply deserve donations. People can donate what they want the rnli shouldn't really be rescuing migrants at the cost of donations its for the gov to sort out. People imo have rightly withdrawn donations as a way to let the governemnt know they aren't happy with the migrant status quo. It was embarrassing watching the BBC the other night with a 15 year old illegal immigrant admitting he lied to the authorities about persecution and came for work. Therein lies the argument to processing centres being located close to the places where people are being displaced. The Foreign Office and Home office once worked together creating local intelligence networks that could relatively accurately attest to the truth of claims being made by people claiming asylum. Once that person has travelled 5,009 miles and rocked up on the beach in S England try getting a newly employed Home office recruit on minimum wage to check a story. Is it any wonder that there is a backlog? The whole thing has been broken by blind ideological thinking. If there is a processing centre closer to them and it rejects someone's application, what stops them from taking the boats instead and trying this route? Why do you think there are boats? Come on… prove that you have been paying attention. The boats started when this government closed down all safe and legal routes meaning that the only way to claim asylum was to get to the U.K. somehow. Conventional travel routes were obviously not possible so the boat opportunists filled a gap in the market. If a person has been denied U.K. asylum in the Lebanon for example, what purpose would there be in travelling across Europe, trying to find a way across the border knowing that your asylum claim has already been denied and you will be immediately deported? This is how it worked prior to this Government closing down safe routes and hence this is why the boats are a relatively new phenomena. Actions and consequences huh?? .the uk government never closed down the safe legal routes. This has been explained in multiple threads kn here they are open. They can still buy visas and tickets. And there are genuine routes for applicants to come here from countries the uk deemed asylum can be requested from. " Simply not true. How can Afghans get here? The only way for them to claim asylum is to be here in this country and without a valid travel visa from Afghanistan they cannot travel by conventional means. Tell us you see the problem. Or are you still going to use the escape hatch that they should get a visa? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
Tedious. I will repost the statement...
“Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative.“
If YOU do not think the definition of manslaughter fits then suggest an alternative.
BTW you didn’t answer a question!!! Funny that!
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die! "There is no other definition. These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice. This is like saying some one who withdraws their donations from samaritans is encouraging suicidal death. Just nonesense. They aren't encouraging the rnli not to go out. They simply aren't funding it to rescue migrants. Especially not in foreign waters. I will take it since you can't defend your stance you retract it. As over seven replies you have failed to say who is committing manslaughter. The rnli shouldn't enter French waters.There is no obligation for then to do this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
As far as I am aware, all of the passengers board the boats willingly, even pay for the privilege, in the full knowledge of the risks.
Surely it is the French who have the responsibility to ensure that all craft carrying paying passengers departing from their shores are seaworthy and properly equipped with safety equipment, just as the UK did when the ferries were manned by inexperienced crew.
It is ironic that the French have the obligation to aid those in danger enshrined in law and clearly do nothing to prevent these boats from leaving.
That is where the blame lies, and it is those in a position to stop the boats departing who should receive our condemnation. "I agree with this. So why are British people stopping their donations to the RNLI on the basis that the charity is doing the very thing they were set up to do? Their strategy states... “Every life matters We value every life and look to prevent loss of life, whoever it may be and wherever they may be in trouble.” It *feels* a bit like people saying “I am going to stop donating blood because they might use it in a person I don’t agree with” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
Tedious. I will repost the statement...
“Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative.“
If YOU do not think the definition of manslaughter fits then suggest an alternative.
BTW you didn’t answer a question!!! Funny that!
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
There is no other definition.
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
This is like saying some one who withdraws their donations from samaritans is encouraging suicidal death.
Just nonesense.
They aren't encouraging the rnli not to go out. They simply aren't funding it to rescue migrants. Especially not in foreign waters.
I will take it since you can't defend your stance you retract it. As over seven replies you have failed to say who is committing manslaughter.
The rnli shouldn't enter French waters.There is no obligation for then to do this.
"No you cannot take that as my stance. Lovely passive aggressive bullshit attempt there! I stand by what I say. No retraction. So here we have it folks. Morley implicitly reveals that he is ok with people dying when it can be prevented... "These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice." Note the callous “simply”. Eventually all such right wingers reveal their true colours. What a disgusting view to hold. Really makes you proud to be British. You know what else? Even if everyone on the boat is merely an economic migrant chancing their arm to get into a rich country for a better life, do they deserve to die? This isn’t a boatload of Jimmy Savilles or Fred Wests! Next Morley will start advocating the removal of medical treatment from smokers, drinkers, snd obese people because it was their choice! As for French waters, yep I agree seems odd but look at the RNLI strategy and the point I posted above. BTW once again you did not explicitly answer my question (lost count how many times). Here it is again... Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
As far as I am aware, all of the passengers board the boats willingly, even pay for the privilege, in the full knowledge of the risks.
Surely it is the French who have the responsibility to ensure that all craft carrying paying passengers departing from their shores are seaworthy and properly equipped with safety equipment, just as the UK did when the ferries were manned by inexperienced crew.
It is ironic that the French have the obligation to aid those in danger enshrined in law and clearly do nothing to prevent these boats from leaving.
That is where the blame lies, and it is those in a position to stop the boats departing who should receive our condemnation.
I agree with this. So why are British people stopping their donations to the RNLI on the basis that the charity is doing the very thing they were set up to do? Their strategy states...
“Every life matters
We value every life and look to prevent loss of life, whoever it may be and wherever they may be in trouble.”
It *feels* a bit like people saying “I am going to stop donating blood because they might use it in a person I don’t agree with”"So where does our responsibility end? If hundreds of migrants deterred from entry into the US leave Mexico in dinghies, do we rescue them five miles off Mexico? The only system that has been shown to work is the Australian one. That way, nobody risks their life, no-one drowns and criminals don't get rich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice. " Imagine thinking this is true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
Tedious. I will repost the statement...
“Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative.“
If YOU do not think the definition of manslaughter fits then suggest an alternative.
BTW you didn’t answer a question!!! Funny that!
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
There is no other definition.
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
This is like saying some one who withdraws their donations from samaritans is encouraging suicidal death.
Just nonesense.
They aren't encouraging the rnli not to go out. They simply aren't funding it to rescue migrants. Especially not in foreign waters.
I will take it since you can't defend your stance you retract it. As over seven replies you have failed to say who is committing manslaughter.
The rnli shouldn't enter French waters.There is no obligation for then to do this.
No you cannot take that as my stance. Lovely passive aggressive bullshit attempt there! I stand by what I say. No retraction.
So here we have it folks. Morley implicitly reveals that he is ok with people dying when it can be prevented...
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
Note the callous “simply”. Eventually all such right wingers reveal their true colours. What a disgusting view to hold. Really makes you proud to be British.
You know what else? Even if everyone on the boat is merely an economic migrant chancing their arm to get into a rich country for a better life, do they deserve to die? This isn’t a boatload of Jimmy Savilles or Fred Wests!
Next Morley will start advocating the removal of medical treatment from smokers, drinkers, snd obese people because it was their choice!
As for French waters, yep I agree seems odd but look at the RNLI strategy and the point I posted above.
BTW once again you did not explicitly answer my question (lost count how many times). Here it is again...
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die! "Am I allowed to get involved here? You can't claim 'passive aggressive bullshit' and then hand out some of your own
You've chosen your hill, you won't back down, tbh you're attitude on this subject has been nothing but aggression, I get it, you feel strongly about it but he is tight in some instances.
The people committing manslaughter are the criminals and the asylum seekers do get on the boats by choice. That not to say they choose to die, but they do know the risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
As far as I am aware, all of the passengers board the boats willingly, even pay for the privilege, in the full knowledge of the risks.
Surely it is the French who have the responsibility to ensure that all craft carrying paying passengers departing from their shores are seaworthy and properly equipped with safety equipment, just as the UK did when the ferries were manned by inexperienced crew.
It is ironic that the French have the obligation to aid those in danger enshrined in law and clearly do nothing to prevent these boats from leaving.
That is where the blame lies, and it is those in a position to stop the boats departing who should receive our condemnation.
I agree with this. So why are British people stopping their donations to the RNLI on the basis that the charity is doing the very thing they were set up to do? Their strategy states...
“Every life matters
We value every life and look to prevent loss of life, whoever it may be and wherever they may be in trouble.”
It *feels* a bit like people saying “I am going to stop donating blood because they might use it in a person I don’t agree with”
So where does our responsibility end? If hundreds of migrants deterred from entry into the US leave Mexico in dinghies, do we rescue them five miles off Mexico?
The only system that has been shown to work is the Australian one. That way, nobody risks their life, no-one drowns and criminals don't get rich."No idea, although Mexico is patently ridiculous. Ask the RNLI what they think. It appears they think straying into French waters in the channel is fine. How many miles either side of demarcation line are we talking? Was a RNLI boat closer to the craft in trouble than a French boat? Should they just sit there watching it sink because it means straying a few miles into French water? How does that align with maritime law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice. Imagine thinking this is true. " Johnny EVEN IF it is true. Imagine being so callous that you think it is ok for people to die. Because it was their choice! Wonder now about all those recreational sailors who get into trouble? Fuck ‘em apparently. Merchant seamen too? After all they chose to do that job knowing the risks!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
Tedious. I will repost the statement...
“Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative.“
If YOU do not think the definition of manslaughter fits then suggest an alternative.
BTW you didn’t answer a question!!! Funny that!
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
There is no other definition.
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
This is like saying some one who withdraws their donations from samaritans is encouraging suicidal death.
Just nonesense.
They aren't encouraging the rnli not to go out. They simply aren't funding it to rescue migrants. Especially not in foreign waters.
I will take it since you can't defend your stance you retract it. As over seven replies you have failed to say who is committing manslaughter.
The rnli shouldn't enter French waters.There is no obligation for then to do this.
No you cannot take that as my stance. Lovely passive aggressive bullshit attempt there! I stand by what I say. No retraction.
So here we have it folks. Morley implicitly reveals that he is ok with people dying when it can be prevented...
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
Note the callous “simply”. Eventually all such right wingers reveal their true colours. What a disgusting view to hold. Really makes you proud to be British.
You know what else? Even if everyone on the boat is merely an economic migrant chancing their arm to get into a rich country for a better life, do they deserve to die? This isn’t a boatload of Jimmy Savilles or Fred Wests!
Next Morley will start advocating the removal of medical treatment from smokers, drinkers, snd obese people because it was their choice!
As for French waters, yep I agree seems odd but look at the RNLI strategy and the point I posted above.
BTW once again you did not explicitly answer my question (lost count how many times). Here it is again...
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Am I allowed to get involved here?
You can't claim 'passive aggressive bullshit' and then hand out some of your own
You've chosen your hill, you won't back down, tbh you're attitude on this subject has been nothing but aggression, I get it, you feel strongly about it but he is tight in some instances.
The people committing manslaughter are the criminals and the asylum seekers do get on the boats by choice. That not to say they choose to die, but they do know the risk. "What’s good for the goose hey? Yep I stand by what I have said. Happy for someone to provide a better word than manslaughter but none have been forthcoming. I think withdrawing donations from the RNLI on the basis that they are saving people’s lives (their entire purpose) that the former donor does not agree with is a terrible heartless act. I have zero issue for any other reason for stopping donations. Hmmm they know the risk! See last post to Johnny. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice. Imagine thinking this is true. Johnny EVEN IF it is true. Imagine being so callous that you think it is ok for people to die. Because it was their choice! Wonder now about all those recreational sailors who get into trouble? Fuck ‘em apparently. Merchant seamen too? After all they chose to do that job knowing the risks! "I suppose to those people, it would depend on the nationality of the sailors?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
Tedious. I will repost the statement...
“Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative.“
If YOU do not think the definition of manslaughter fits then suggest an alternative.
BTW you didn’t answer a question!!! Funny that!
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
There is no other definition.
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
This is like saying some one who withdraws their donations from samaritans is encouraging suicidal death.
Just nonesense.
They aren't encouraging the rnli not to go out. They simply aren't funding it to rescue migrants. Especially not in foreign waters.
I will take it since you can't defend your stance you retract it. As over seven replies you have failed to say who is committing manslaughter.
The rnli shouldn't enter French waters.There is no obligation for then to do this.
No you cannot take that as my stance. Lovely passive aggressive bullshit attempt there! I stand by what I say. No retraction.
So here we have it folks. Morley implicitly reveals that he is ok with people dying when it can be prevented...
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
Note the callous “simply”. Eventually all such right wingers reveal their true colours. What a disgusting view to hold. Really makes you proud to be British.
You know what else? Even if everyone on the boat is merely an economic migrant chancing their arm to get into a rich country for a better life, do they deserve to die? This isn’t a boatload of Jimmy Savilles or Fred Wests!
Next Morley will start advocating the removal of medical treatment from smokers, drinkers, snd obese people because it was their choice!
As for French waters, yep I agree seems odd but look at the RNLI strategy and the point I posted above.
BTW once again you did not explicitly answer my question (lost count how many times). Here it is again...
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Am I allowed to get involved here?
You can't claim 'passive aggressive bullshit' and then hand out some of your own
You've chosen your hill, you won't back down, tbh you're attitude on this subject has been nothing but aggression, I get it, you feel strongly about it but he is tight in some instances.
The people committing manslaughter are the criminals and the asylum seekers do get on the boats by choice. That not to say they choose to die, but they do know the risk.
What’s good for the goose hey? Yep I stand by what I have said. Happy for someone to provide a better word than manslaughter but none have been forthcoming. I think withdrawing donations from the RNLI on the basis that they are saving people’s lives (their entire purpose) that the former donor does not agree with is a terrible heartless act. I have zero issue for any other reason for stopping donations.
Hmmm they know the risk! See last post to Johnny."It's your word, although I don't agree with your thoughts, I won't try to make you change the word. I hear what you're saying, and agree. Although, people sailing leisurely or for work is not the same, they aren't breaking the law. I'm still of the belief that ANYONE can choose to withdraw ANY DONATION at ANYTIME, their reasons are for them to decide. You know the weirdest part about this thread is it all started from one anecdote, something mostly people usually call out  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice. Imagine thinking this is true. Johnny EVEN IF it is true. Imagine being so callous that you think it is ok for people to die. Because it was their choice! Wonder now about all those recreational sailors who get into trouble? Fuck ‘em apparently. Merchant seamen too? After all they chose to do that job knowing the risks!
I suppose to those people, it would depend on the nationality of the sailors? "It seems that way although that would be in contravention of maritime law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
Tedious. I will repost the statement...
“Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative.“
If YOU do not think the definition of manslaughter fits then suggest an alternative.
BTW you didn’t answer a question!!! Funny that!
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
There is no other definition.
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
This is like saying some one who withdraws their donations from samaritans is encouraging suicidal death.
Just nonesense.
They aren't encouraging the rnli not to go out. They simply aren't funding it to rescue migrants. Especially not in foreign waters.
I will take it since you can't defend your stance you retract it. As over seven replies you have failed to say who is committing manslaughter.
The rnli shouldn't enter French waters.There is no obligation for then to do this.
No you cannot take that as my stance. Lovely passive aggressive bullshit attempt there! I stand by what I say. No retraction.
So here we have it folks. Morley implicitly reveals that he is ok with people dying when it can be prevented...
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
Note the callous “simply”. Eventually all such right wingers reveal their true colours. What a disgusting view to hold. Really makes you proud to be British.
You know what else? Even if everyone on the boat is merely an economic migrant chancing their arm to get into a rich country for a better life, do they deserve to die? This isn’t a boatload of Jimmy Savilles or Fred Wests!
Next Morley will start advocating the removal of medical treatment from smokers, drinkers, snd obese people because it was their choice!
As for French waters, yep I agree seems odd but look at the RNLI strategy and the point I posted above.
BTW once again you did not explicitly answer my question (lost count how many times). Here it is again...
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die! "I have to take it as your stance as you refuse point blank tk clarify your stance on who is committing the man slaughter. It's a choice to pay 5k to be smuggled into a country. It's a choice to give or withold donations. It's a chose for the French government not to intervene in their own waters which no rnli boat should operate. As I have said all along. The rnli can save them. But they shouldn't expect people's donations to fund it. This isn't manslaughter of any kind. If they continue to do these operations then donations will stop flowing so heavily. This is the outcome. I still wait the manslaughter answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice. Imagine thinking this is true. Johnny EVEN IF it is true. Imagine being so callous that you think it is ok for people to die. Because it was their choice! Wonder now about all those recreational sailors who get into trouble? Fuck ‘em apparently. Merchant seamen too? After all they chose to do that job knowing the risks!
I suppose to those people, it would depend on the nationality of the sailors?
It seems that way although that would be in contravention of maritime law."Apparently so, a quick check of the shipping movements in the Channel yesterday morning shows many French fishing boats in the vicinity, not one went to help. Similarly if you look at flight radar, our De Havilland Canada Dash 8-300 ISR takes off from Lydd and patrols just our side of half way across the channel all day every day. No French aircraft, no EU aircraft, zilch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You accused some one of condoning manslaughter. So some one .ust be committing that manslaughter. You're now going to have to actually say who is committing the mansalughter here _irldn. I can see what you are doing Morley and I won’t take the bait. You are forever asking questions but never answer them. But I will try... 1. What would you call ex-donors wanting the RNLI to knowingly allow people to die by refusing to go to their aid despite being in a position to prevent that loss of life? 2. Do you think the RNLI should not go to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers that are in trouble? I answer every question _irldn. I think you have me confused with a left wing poster in here. I would call those donors " people who withdrew their donations" the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. But they shouldn't expect the public to fund such ventures. Now. Answer my question. Who is committing the manslaughter please? You don’t but hey ho. I have already said why I used to word manslaughter and explained the circumstances. I believe the definition fits as per this post... “Do you have a better word? To me it fits the legal definition... “Manslaughter by gross negligence occurs when the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, the breach causes the death of the victim and, having regard to the risk involved, the offender’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.” So if the RNLI stopped coming to the aid of small boats because they have illegal migrants on them, which is clearly the wish of those who have stated that is the reason they will no longer donate, it would result in deaths and considering the role of the RNLI would fit that definition. Hence those ex-donors who want that outcome must therefore condone manslaughter. Mr Discretion disputes this definition and I await a response. Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative. As to your responses. the rnli shouldn't go rescue them. But tif they enter French waters. Should return the illegal immigrants to French shores. Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
Do you know how international waters work? We aren't responsible for French waters.
The French are responsible for their waters we pay them over 100m a year to keep the migrants on their shores.
Please now answer my question. Who is committing the man slaughter.
4th time of asking.
Your tactics are so transparent now. The way you shift discussion to simply go for the win on a technicality. I answered your question. It’s right there above. If you feel the word manslaughter in the context I have used it is incorrect then please provide me with an alternative better word that describes the situation we are discussing.
It's not a technicality.
You said they were condoning manslaughter by removing their voluntary donations
Who is committing the mansalughter?
It's a simple question.cyou don't like it because you've backed yourself into a corner making an ignorant point.
You used the word. It's for you to defend its use. Not for me to think of s better one.
Now answer the question.
Or retract your statement.
No! I stand by it but will happily use a different word that better represents the situation if someone can provide that. I think the definition fits but there may be a better one.
Do you condone knowingly allowing people to drown/die when that is completely avoidable and there is a specialist service there to act accordingly?
Why are you now talking about France? Trying to manipulate the argument?
So people are apparently condoning mansalighter. But you refuse to acknowledge who is committing that manslaughter?
You're a hoot.
Tedious. I will repost the statement...
“Clearly the RNLI are saving people so currently nobody is dying. If they complied with the wishes of those who have stated why they will no longer donate, then deaths will happen. That must mean those ex-donors do not care and are comfortable with those deaths happening. In my mind that is condoning knowingly allowing someone to die that could have easily been prevented. I choose the word manslaughter. If there is a better definition then happy to accept that and I have said so several times yet nobody is coming forward with any alternative.“
If YOU do not think the definition of manslaughter fits then suggest an alternative.
BTW you didn’t answer a question!!! Funny that!
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die!
There is no other definition.
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
This is like saying some one who withdraws their donations from samaritans is encouraging suicidal death.
Just nonesense.
They aren't encouraging the rnli not to go out. They simply aren't funding it to rescue migrants. Especially not in foreign waters.
I will take it since you can't defend your stance you retract it. As over seven replies you have failed to say who is committing manslaughter.
The rnli shouldn't enter French waters.There is no obligation for then to do this.
No you cannot take that as my stance. Lovely passive aggressive bullshit attempt there! I stand by what I say. No retraction.
So here we have it folks. Morley implicitly reveals that he is ok with people dying when it can be prevented...
These are people simply dying at sea by their own choice.
Note the callous “simply”. Eventually all such right wingers reveal their true colours. What a disgusting view to hold. Really makes you proud to be British.
You know what else? Even if everyone on the boat is merely an economic migrant chancing their arm to get into a rich country for a better life, do they deserve to die? This isn’t a boatload of Jimmy Savilles or Fred Wests!
Next Morley will start advocating the removal of medical treatment from smokers, drinkers, snd obese people because it was their choice!
As for French waters, yep I agree seems odd but look at the RNLI strategy and the point I posted above.
BTW once again you did not explicitly answer my question (lost count how many times). Here it is again...
Did you mean should or shouldn’t? Are you really happy for the RNLI to not go to the aid of a boat in danger? That must therefore mean you are happy for the people on board that boat to die! "The rnli shouldn't enter French waters that's the job of the French. It's an international agreement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI are “obligated to enter the waters of other territories for search and rescue purposes” https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/our-work-in-the-channel-faqs#" How far? Infinite? Do the French/Eu have any responsibilities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI are “obligated to enter the waters of other territories for search and rescue purposes” https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/our-work-in-the-channel-faqs# How far? Infinite? Do the French/Eu have any responsibilities?" All maritime organisations have such responsibilities. It’s maritime law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI are “obligated to enter the waters of other territories for search and rescue purposes” https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/our-work-in-the-channel-faqs#" The rnli isn't a state party. There is nothing forcing them to launch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI are “obligated to enter the waters of other territories for search and rescue purposes” https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/our-work-in-the-channel-faqs# How far? Infinite? Do the French/Eu have any responsibilities? All maritime organisations have such responsibilities. It’s maritime law." Have you posted your views on lesswingersmagnifique.com? or any EU site. Or is it all the fault of the Tories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI are “obligated to enter the waters of other territories for search and rescue purposes” https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/our-work-in-the-channel-faqs# How far? Infinite? Do the French/Eu have any responsibilities? All maritime organisations have such responsibilities. It’s maritime law. Have you posted your views on lesswingersmagnifique.com? or any EU site. Or is it all the fault of the Tories?" Maritime law is easily researched. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems people in here prefer the uk charitable donations to go to the uk to patrol international and French waters. Rather than the French doing it themselves. Happy for french and other e.u boats to ignore their international obligations but the rnli to pick up the pieces. Happy for the French tl receives hundreds of.millions to.patrol their seas and properly house migrants. And not do so. But as per _irldn. It's those withdrawing their funding of tbe rnli who are enabling manslaughter. But won't say who's committing the man slaughter. "You cannot help yourself Morley. I have had a single purpose in this thread. To criticise the stated motivation of people choosing to stop donating to the RNLI on the basis that they are going to the aid of boats carrying people they fo not approve of. They are therefore happy for those people to drown. I think that is an abhorrent attitude. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems people in here prefer the uk charitable donations to go to the uk to patrol international and French waters. Rather than the French doing it themselves. Happy for french and other e.u boats to ignore their international obligations but the rnli to pick up the pieces. Happy for the French tl receives hundreds of.millions to.patrol their seas and properly house migrants. And not do so. But as per _irldn. It's those withdrawing their funding of tbe rnli who are enabling manslaughter. But won't say who's committing the man slaughter.
You cannot help yourself Morley. I have had a single purpose in this thread. To criticise the stated motivation of people choosing to stop donating to the RNLI on the basis that they are going to the aid of boats carrying people they fo not approve of. They are therefore happy for those people to drown. I think that is an abhorrent attitude."You'll just need to step up your donations to carry on funding it then. Do you send them funds yourself? Would be great to know your not being a hypocrite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"SAR: https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Maritime-Search-and-Rescue-(SAR).aspx" Thanks...I await your quote on the rnlis obligation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems people in here prefer the uk charitable donations to go to the uk to patrol international and French waters. Rather than the French doing it themselves. Happy for french and other e.u boats to ignore their international obligations but the rnli to pick up the pieces. Happy for the French tl receives hundreds of.millions to.patrol their seas and properly house migrants. And not do so. But as per _irldn. It's those withdrawing their funding of tbe rnli who are enabling manslaughter. But won't say who's committing the man slaughter.
You cannot help yourself Morley. I have had a single purpose in this thread. To criticise the stated motivation of people choosing to stop donating to the RNLI on the basis that they are going to the aid of boats carrying people they fo not approve of. They are therefore happy for those people to drown. I think that is an abhorrent attitude.
You'll just need to step up your donations to carry on funding it then.
Do you send them funds yourself? Would be great to know your not being a hypocrite. "Read the thread instead of simply focusing on your incessant ping pong. Loved your use of “simply” earlier. A revealing moment regarding your morals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have read the posts about the RNLI and while there ethos is to save lives at sea they are a victim of there own ethos every time you bring the migrants to British shore’s, Take them back to France and you will start sending the message don’t come to Britain through the people smugglers, The RNLI do a great job but until they start sending a message we are not your free taxi to the U.K. they will keep coming, " Why should they be taken to France? They are not France's problem! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have read the posts about the RNLI and while there ethos is to save lives at sea they are a victim of there own ethos every time you bring the migrants to British shore’s, Take them back to France and you will start sending the message don’t come to Britain through the people smugglers, The RNLI do a great job but until they start sending a message we are not your free taxi to the U.K. they will keep coming, Why should they be taken to France? They are not France's problem!" The boat a couple of days ago was in French waters. Imagine hating the UK for saying they aren't our problem but saying 'they aren't our problem' when you reside in France. The mind boggles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have read the posts about the RNLI and while there ethos is to save lives at sea they are a victim of there own ethos every time you bring the migrants to British shore’s, Take them back to France and you will start sending the message don’t come to Britain through the people smugglers, The RNLI do a great job but until they start sending a message we are not your free taxi to the U.K. they will keep coming, Why should they be taken to France? They are not France's problem!" They are if in French territorial waters! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When are people going to actually realise that all this agitation about boats, barges, hotels and the RNLI is all confected and engineered by the Conservative Party in Government. They could dramatically reduce the volume of anger in a heartbeat if they really wanted to, but of course they don’t want to. It suits them to keep the “problem” in the news and suits them if they are being “tough” on the illegals. Overseas processing centres near to the origin of the asylum seekers to benefit from local intelligence. Introduce safe and legal routes that can be accessed from elsewhere in the world. Fund the Home Office so that all the asylum processing staff who were cut between 2910 and 2015 can be replaced and the processing turnaround times reduced. However, to do all of the above, the Government would have to accept that we will have refugees and asylum seekers and that will now be seen as a betrayal by Brexit minded and ultra Tory types." This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have read the posts about the RNLI and while there ethos is to save lives at sea they are a victim of there own ethos every time you bring the migrants to British shore’s, Take them back to France and you will start sending the message don’t come to Britain through the people smugglers, The RNLI do a great job but until they start sending a message we are not your free taxi to the U.K. they will keep coming, Why should they be taken to France? They are not France's problem! The boat a couple of days ago was in French waters. Imagine hating the UK for saying they aren't our problem but saying 'they aren't our problem' when you reside in France. The mind boggles. " Oh dear - here come the personal attacks again. Strange how it is always the same person who does this! Oh didums | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have read the posts about the RNLI and while there ethos is to save lives at sea they are a victim of there own ethos every time you bring the migrants to British shore’s, Take them back to France and you will start sending the message don’t come to Britain through the people smugglers, The RNLI do a great job but until they start sending a message we are not your free taxi to the U.K. they will keep coming, Why should they be taken to France? They are not France's problem! The boat a couple of days ago was in French waters. Imagine hating the UK for saying they aren't our problem but saying 'they aren't our problem' when you reside in France. The mind boggles. Oh dear - here come the personal attacks again. Strange how it is always the same person who does this! Oh didums" Where was the 'attack'? Fuck me some people, always the victim. You have a go at people residing in the UK for saying 'they aren't our problem' whilst saying the exact same thing, whilst residing in France. As I said, the mind boggles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have read the posts about the RNLI and while there ethos is to save lives at sea they are a victim of there own ethos every time you bring the migrants to British shore’s, Take them back to France and you will start sending the message don’t come to Britain through the people smugglers, The RNLI do a great job but until they start sending a message we are not your free taxi to the U.K. they will keep coming, Why should they be taken to France? They are not France's problem! The boat a couple of days ago was in French waters. Imagine hating the UK for saying they aren't our problem but saying 'they aren't our problem' when you reside in France. The mind boggles. Oh dear - here come the personal attacks again. Strange how it is always the same person who does this! Oh didums Where was the 'attack'? Fuck me some people, always the victim. You have a go at people residing in the UK for saying 'they aren't our problem' whilst saying the exact same thing, whilst residing in France. As I said, the mind boggles. " Seeing as everyone weighs into other discussions, so will I. I think this is a problem for the “west” or the “first world”. We cannot reduce this to a national threat. It requires cooperation and collaboration. As long as there is such a disparity between the wealthy countries in the world and the poor, people will want to move to the rich countries. Some of those people are genuinely oppressed or in danger in their own countries. Others are economic migrants chancing their arm for a better life. But it ain’t gonna stop! In fact it is going to get worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual there is an attempt at derailing the thread or bogging it down in tangential points. The focus on this thread is that some RNLI donors are stopping their donations because the RNLI are going to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers. Some people on this thread (including me) think that is an awful position to take while some others support it. It seems we have people here who have no problem with letting people drown because they chose to get in the boat. I accept that people have different political views. Debate is healthy. I understand why immigrants crossing the channel is a highly emotive topic and why it makes some people angry. But being fine with them dying with a simple shrug! I think that is pretty shocking. If they hold such a callous disregard for human life, it makes you wonder about their other views. It is not the same as arguing over which political party or policy is better. I am shocked and saddened by that attitude amongst a swinger community who traditionally have always been so open and accepting of “otherness”. Times change. How sad." Am surprised your surprised Birldn. Civilised society is a thin line that keeps the savagery and callousness of the humans in check. You only have to look at history and the breakup of countries like Yugoslavia, partition of India, Genocide in Rwanda and even Northern Ireland to a degree. To see how people can turn from a friendly neighbour to your worst nightmare with a flick of a switch, if they feel there's no consequences to their actions, humans can be very savage. It usually starts with language from the top. The ones that echo the rhetoric are the ones you have to be careful of if you find yourself in the target group of their anger. There was a thread on Lounge that asked what the one thing people would do if there was no consequences to their action. Another if you knew you were going to die in the next couple of hours. Interesting how many people who wrote about commiting violence on a person they disagreed with politically or a celebrity they disliked. On the plus side there were also ones who wanted to spend the last hours with their loved ones. So there is hope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As usual there is an attempt at derailing the thread or bogging it down in tangential points. The focus on this thread is that some RNLI donors are stopping their donations because the RNLI are going to the aid of boats carrying illegal migrants/asylum seekers. Some people on this thread (including me) think that is an awful position to take while some others support it. It seems we have people here who have no problem with letting people drown because they chose to get in the boat. I accept that people have different political views. Debate is healthy. I understand why immigrants crossing the channel is a highly emotive topic and why it makes some people angry. But being fine with them dying with a simple shrug! I think that is pretty shocking. If they hold such a callous disregard for human life, it makes you wonder about their other views. It is not the same as arguing over which political party or policy is better. I am shocked and saddened by that attitude amongst a swinger community who traditionally have always been so open and accepting of “otherness”. Times change. How sad. Am surprised your surprised Birldn. Civilised society is a thin line that keeps the savagery and callousness of the humans in check. You only have to look at history and the breakup of countries like Yugoslavia, partition of India, Genocide in Rwanda and even Northern Ireland to a degree. To see how people can turn from a friendly neighbour to your worst nightmare with a flick of a switch, if they feel there's no consequences to their actions, humans can be very savage. It usually starts with language from the top. The ones that echo the rhetoric are the ones you have to be careful of if you find yourself in the target group of their anger. There was a thread on Lounge that asked what the one thing people would do if there was no consequences to their action. Another if you knew you were going to die in the next couple of hours. Interesting how many people who wrote about commiting violence on a person they disagreed with politically or a celebrity they disliked. On the plus side there were also ones who wanted to spend the last hours with their loved ones. So there is hope." Thanks. Maybe not surprised but certainly disappointed. In some cases it would also bring into question their motives for swinging! If they have such a blatant and callous disregard for the life of others, then can they be remotely trusted to treat you/your loved one with respect in a swinging context or do they simply view people as a piece of meat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have read the posts about the RNLI and while there ethos is to save lives at sea they are a victim of there own ethos every time you bring the migrants to British shore’s, Take them back to France and you will start sending the message don’t come to Britain through the people smugglers, The RNLI do a great job but until they start sending a message we are not your free taxi to the U.K. they will keep coming, Why should they be taken to France? They are not France's problem! The boat a couple of days ago was in French waters. Imagine hating the UK for saying they aren't our problem but saying 'they aren't our problem' when you reside in France. The mind boggles. Oh dear - here come the personal attacks again. Strange how it is always the same person who does this! Oh didums Where was the 'attack'? Fuck me some people, always the victim. You have a go at people residing in the UK for saying 'they aren't our problem' whilst saying the exact same thing, whilst residing in France. As I said, the mind boggles. Seeing as everyone weighs into other discussions, so will I. I think this is a problem for the “west” or the “first world”. We cannot reduce this to a national threat. It requires cooperation and collaboration. As long as there is such a disparity between the wealthy countries in the world and the poor, people will want to move to the rich countries. Some of those people are genuinely oppressed or in danger in their own countries. Others are economic migrants chancing their arm for a better life. But it ain’t gonna stop! In fact it is going to get worse." Ideally the refugee fleeing war should be taken by the main protagonists financing and arming these wars. Wonder how long these conflicts would last if a USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia knew they had to host the refugees from their escapades. Unfortunately this is impossible to enforce. This problem is going to continue because of the struggle for influence and control of smaller nations resources between the West and China. Hopefully it won't reach the scales of 1940s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
