FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Greek coastguard killing migrants
Greek coastguard killing migrants
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?" With all the focus on Reform, I read their immigration policy, which wasn't as bas as I thought it was going to be, in fact it acknowledged the need for immigration. To the point, it went onto say they would pick up migrants making small boat crossings and take them back to their place of departure, which they say is legal to do. I have no idea if it is or isn't, but if it is why wouldn't we and every other nation do that. Going back to the Greek situation, as you mention they have been reckless many times and I think their idea is to appear to be so aggressive it deters, but killing people WTF. | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda? With all the focus on Reform, I read their immigration policy, which wasn't as bas as I thought it was going to be, in fact it acknowledged the need for immigration. To the point, it went onto say they would pick up migrants making small boat crossings and take them back to their place of departure, which they say is legal to do. I have no idea if it is or isn't, but if it is why wouldn't we and every other nation do that. Going back to the Greek situation, as you mention they have been reckless many times and I think their idea is to appear to be so aggressive it deters, but killing people WTF." I lack knowledge on this but the article says “pushing back” is illegal. I assume a coastguard boat from one country cannot enter the territorial waters of another country without permission or if saving lives? | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda? With all the focus on Reform, I read their immigration policy, which wasn't as bas as I thought it was going to be, in fact it acknowledged the need for immigration. To the point, it went onto say they would pick up migrants making small boat crossings and take them back to their place of departure, which they say is legal to do. I have no idea if it is or isn't, but if it is why wouldn't we and every other nation do that. Going back to the Greek situation, as you mention they have been reckless many times and I think their idea is to appear to be so aggressive it deters, but killing people WTF." The French navy might have something to say about returning migrants to their shores. That said, Churchill sank the French Fleet in WWII so that's always an option for Nigel. | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?" Wasn't very long ago that people on here were advocating forced drowning of immigrant families in the channel. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously." Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution?" My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash." Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda? With all the focus on Reform, I read their immigration policy, which wasn't as bas as I thought it was going to be, in fact it acknowledged the need for immigration. To the point, it went onto say they would pick up migrants making small boat crossings and take them back to their place of departure, which they say is legal to do. I have no idea if it is or isn't, but if it is why wouldn't we and every other nation do that. Going back to the Greek situation, as you mention they have been reckless many times and I think their idea is to appear to be so aggressive it deters, but killing people WTF. I lack knowledge on this but the article says “pushing back” is illegal. I assume a coastguard boat from one country cannot enter the territorial waters of another country without permission or if saving lives?" This has made me think about the current situation. We are paying the French authorities to stop the small boats leaving the french coast, but people have said many times here, that asylum seekers should not be hindered on their journey to seek asylum, is stopping them leaving France illegal? Assuming it is legal, because I can't remember this service going through so many legal challenges.... If they do leave France, and we have paid for the French to stop this happening, is not only right to return them to France and let them know they haven't done their job properly, or actually get service credits fro each boat that turns up, that would go some way to pay for processing. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK." I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them." Like the D-Day landings? | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them." Is that legal? | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal?" According to the Reform manifesto it is. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. " Again I lack knowledge but I believe maritime law trumps national law? So is this legal under maritime law? | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. " Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. " But is it legal or illegal, I really want to know. | |||
| |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. But is it legal or illegal, I really want to know." Maybe look it up somewhere more reliable than the Beano/Reform manifesto. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. But is it legal or illegal, I really want to know. Maybe look it up somewhere more reliable than the Beano/Reform manifesto." You do know I was being a little tongue in cheek... but not about knowing if it is legal or not, you seem to have discredited the idea, so is it or not? | |||
"A little bit of clarity. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea creates an obligation to rescue anyone in danger at sea. Article 98 obliges states to require all masters of a ship to help anyone in danger at sea, so long as it does not also cause serious danger to the rescuing ship. Return to France? Article 25 of the Convention does allow states to prevent passage in their territorial waters, including to prohibit crime, smuggling, or breaching immigration rules. If such tactics were to put vessels in danger, the obligations for search and rescue still apply. But any return of a vessel to a state’s territorial waters would require that state’s consent. It’s not clear whether France has consented to the return of vessels to its waters, especially given France’s negative response to the current proposals." Very helpful thanks. So on that basis it would appear from the story in OP that Turkey must have agreed for Greek Coastguard to enter their waters and return migrants? | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. But is it legal or illegal, I really want to know. Maybe look it up somewhere more reliable than the Beano/Reform manifesto. You do know I was being a little tongue in cheek... but not about knowing if it is legal or not, you seem to have discredited the idea, so is it or not?" Ah I missed the tongue in cheek. If no idea if this unfeasible, ridiculous idea is legal of not. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. " Have you read their manifesto? I see nowhere that they claim science isn't real... Maybe I missed it. | |||
"A little bit of clarity. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea creates an obligation to rescue anyone in danger at sea. Article 98 obliges states to require all masters of a ship to help anyone in danger at sea, so long as it does not also cause serious danger to the rescuing ship. Return to France? Article 25 of the Convention does allow states to prevent passage in their territorial waters, including to prohibit crime, smuggling, or breaching immigration rules. If such tactics were to put vessels in danger, the obligations for search and rescue still apply. But any return of a vessel to a state’s territorial waters would require that state’s consent. It’s not clear whether France has consented to the return of vessels to its waters, especially given France’s negative response to the current proposals. Very helpful thanks. So on that basis it would appear from the story in OP that Turkey must have agreed for Greek Coastguard to enter their waters and return migrants?" To add…the OP says “pushing back” is illegal but I read that as literally pushing back, ie turning them around. Not picking them up safely and sailing back to Turkey to drop them off. | |||
"The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law." Pushing back is not illegal, it's a recognised method of protecting a border. It happens every day in Australia where Navy ships ram migrant vessels to turn them around. However the boats used in channel crossings are considerably more flimsy. Pushing back an inflatable with a frigate is very likely to make the inflatable sink, and it would be illegal to deliberately do anything that had a high likelihood of causing death. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature." I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free." So the BBC is lying? | |||
"The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law. Pushing back is not illegal, it's a recognised method of protecting a border. It happens every day in Australia where Navy ships ram migrant vessels to turn them around. However the boats used in channel crossings are considerably more flimsy. Pushing back an inflatable with a frigate is very likely to make the inflatable sink, and it would be illegal to deliberately do anything that had a high likelihood of causing death." Again the BBC is lying? | |||
"The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law. Pushing back is not illegal, it's a recognised method of protecting a border. It happens every day in Australia where Navy ships ram migrant vessels to turn them around. However the boats used in channel crossings are considerably more flimsy. Pushing back an inflatable with a frigate is very likely to make the inflatable sink, and it would be illegal to deliberately do anything that had a high likelihood of causing death. Again the BBC is lying?" If it’s on the BBC, it’s guaranteed to be untrue. | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda? With all the focus on Reform, I read their immigration policy, which wasn't as bas as I thought it was going to be, in fact it acknowledged the need for immigration. To the point, it went onto say they would pick up migrants making small boat crossings and take them back to their place of departure, which they say is legal to do. I have no idea if it is or isn't, but if it is why wouldn't we and every other nation do that. Going back to the Greek situation, as you mention they have been reckless many times and I think their idea is to appear to be so aggressive it deters, but killing people WTF." It’s not legal. They could not deliver this policy. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously." What nonsense don’t be daft. | |||
"A little bit of clarity. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea creates an obligation to rescue anyone in danger at sea. Article 98 obliges states to require all masters of a ship to help anyone in danger at sea, so long as it does not also cause serious danger to the rescuing ship. Return to France? Article 25 of the Convention does allow states to prevent passage in their territorial waters, including to prohibit crime, smuggling, or breaching immigration rules. If such tactics were to put vessels in danger, the obligations for search and rescue still apply. But any return of a vessel to a state’s territorial waters would require that state’s consent. It’s not clear whether France has consented to the return of vessels to its waters, especially given France’s negative response to the current proposals." This folks is the reality of the situation. Don’t be sucked in by populist BS | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. So the BBC is lying?" It isn't the BBC saying this. The BBC is reporting that somebody said this. Slight difference. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature." "I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free." "So the BBC is lying?" I'm sure the BBC are accurately reporting what they have been told. I'm accusing the man who claims to have been tied up of doing the lying. | |||
"The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law." "Pushing back is not illegal, it's a recognised method of protecting a border. It happens every day in Australia where Navy ships ram migrant vessels to turn them around. However the boats used in channel crossings are considerably more flimsy. Pushing back an inflatable with a frigate is very likely to make the inflatable sink, and it would be illegal to deliberately do anything that had a high likelihood of causing death." "Again the BBC is lying?" The BBC in this case are just being sloppy. What they mean is "pushing back a tiny, dangerously overloaded, vessel would be illegal". They tend to simplify stuff to make the story easier to read. They regularly get complaints of inaccurate reporting, and it's always explained away as "abstracting the details to make the story more accessible". | |||
"I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them." "Is that legal?" If a vessel picks up people in distress, that vessel is entitled to stop at any port reasonably close to its planned course to drop off the survivors. If we picked up people from The Channel and took them directly back to France, that would be a legal action. What we can't do is pick them up, bring them to the UK, then decide that we don't want them and take them back to France. | |||
"I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? If a vessel picks up people in distress, that vessel is entitled to stop at any port reasonably close to its planned course to drop off the survivors. If we picked up people from The Channel and took them directly back to France, that would be a legal action. What we can't do is pick them up, bring them to the UK, then decide that we don't want them and take them back to France." Then why don’t we? Or do we if a Border Force vessel intercepts? Do we need more BF vessels and higher frequency of voyages? | |||
| |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?" This is awful! To treat people in this manner, so vile and cruel. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free." *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........  | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........ "I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me  | |||
" I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal?" 2. The first key provision is paragraph 3.1.9 of the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (1979), otherwise known as the SAR convention. Under this, the UK has responsibility for arranging delivery of people in an unsafe craft to a place of safety.[2] There is no obligation under international maritime law for the country that asylum seekers are trying to enter to tolerate them going ashore there.[3] 3. This would not preclude migrants found in British waters being taken to France given that France is a safe country which, for example, as an EU member state, is required by Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union to respect human rights. For an example of how this situation has been addressed outside of Europe, the Australian Maritime Powers Act 2013, amended in 2017, states that a maritime officer may detain a person on a vessel and take the person to a place outside Australia. Section 72 of that Act partially provides for Australia’s implementation of the SAR convention, in terms of setting out a requirement that when Australian officials take somebody to another location, they need to ensure that it is essentially a place of safety. That is a fundamental component of the search and rescue obligations: that when someone in distress is rescued they are taken to a place of safety. | |||
| |||
" I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? 2. The first key provision is paragraph 3.1.9 of the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (1979), otherwise known as the SAR convention. Under this, the UK has responsibility for arranging delivery of people in an unsafe craft to a place of safety.[2] There is no obligation under international maritime law for the country that asylum seekers are trying to enter to tolerate them going ashore there.[3] 3. This would not preclude migrants found in British waters being taken to France given that France is a safe country which, for example, as an EU member state, is required by Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union to respect human rights. For an example of how this situation has been addressed outside of Europe, the Australian Maritime Powers Act 2013, amended in 2017, states that a maritime officer may detain a person on a vessel and take the person to a place outside Australia. Section 72 of that Act partially provides for Australia’s implementation of the SAR convention, in terms of setting out a requirement that when Australian officials take somebody to another location, they need to ensure that it is essentially a place of safety. That is a fundamental component of the search and rescue obligations: that when someone in distress is rescued they are taken to a place of safety." So Border Force can pick them up and take them straight back to France? Do they? | |||
" So Border Force can pick them up and take them straight back to France? Do they?" 8. Mr Loughton added: "International maritime lawyers gave us evidence that the French authorities are entitled within international maritime law to intercept boats in the water and return the passengers to French territory or to allow Border Force to return the migrants to French territory if they are picked up in British territorial waters."[9] | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me "Do you take this story seriously? The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died. | |||
" So Border Force can pick them up and take them straight back to France? Do they? 8. Mr Loughton added: "International maritime lawyers gave us evidence that the French authorities are entitled within international maritime law to intercept boats in the water and return the passengers to French territory or to allow Border Force to return the migrants to French territory if they are picked up in British territorial waters."[9]" This would mean the Reform manifesto is correct, how strange  | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died. "Yea. This got me thinking this is probably untrue. The BBC are being a clever with their use of 'investigated' too. They said they 'showed footage', inferring that it was showing people being thrown into the sea, but actually the footage shows that 'perhaps' they transferred people to a raft and then let them drift. (however illegal or not). 'Investigate' also meant they spoke to people, the main one being the zip-tie guys. How can we know this is true? 12 miles wearing a zip tie which he broke free from? 12 miles os a bit precise for someone who is in open water to say 'it was 12 miles'. Where is the international outcry and the video proof? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The easiest & safest option we have to stop the crossings is to stop all the free benefits, healthcare, education, housing that is available for them all. This will save lives, save the UK billions & give our own homeless the chance of getting a home. Many young people in the UK Work hard but still unable to afford there own place, some living with parents until there early forties." That’s just far too sensible a suggestion, so there is no chance of it happening. And there is no way that Starmer is going to upset the EU, UN, WEF etc so we can just expect more of the same. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died. "The whole article and thread topic yes. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously." Nah CEO obvs | |||
| |||
"The easiest & safest option we have to stop the crossings is to stop all the free benefits, healthcare, education, housing that is available for them all. This will save lives, save the UK billions & give our own homeless the chance of getting a home. Many young people in the UK Work hard but still unable to afford there own place, some living with parents until there early forties." Under our international obligations, we have a duty to provide them all with food, housing, and healthcare. We can't just let people starve or freeze to death, and we can't send them away. The easiest way out is simply to rescind our agreement to the 1951 convention. After the necessary year has gone past we can then send anyone to anywhere we like, with no one to stop us. But that's not very progressive. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes."I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
Yea. This got me thinking this is probably untrue.
The BBC are being a clever with their use of 'investigated' too. They said they 'showed footage', inferring that it was showing people being thrown into the sea, but actually the footage shows that 'perhaps' they transferred people to a raft and then let them drift. (however illegal or not). 'Investigate' also meant they spoke to people, the main one being the zip-tie guys. How can we know this is true? 12 miles wearing a zip tie which he broke free from? 12 miles os a bit precise for someone who is in open water to say 'it was 12 miles'.
Where is the international outcry and the video proof?
"I chose 12 miles as I believe the closest crossing between Greece & Turkey is Rhodes Town - Marmaris which is around 25 miles. It could've been further, or maybe he broke free within minutes (doubtable unless he's Jason Bourne). | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes.
I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting. "And my comment to the other poster was that I didn’t think this thread warranted humour, or it was poor taste. It doesn’t matter if one element is questionable. Of course people can post what they want. I thought in this case it was ill-judged and bad taste. | |||
| |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes.
I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting.
And my comment to the other poster was that I didn’t think this thread warranted humour, or it was poor taste. It doesn’t matter if one element is questionable. Of course people can post what they want. I thought in this case it was ill-judged and bad taste."So do you believe it or not? | |||
| |||
| |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes.
I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting.
And my comment to the other poster was that I didn’t think this thread warranted humour, or it was poor taste. It doesn’t matter if one element is questionable. Of course people can post what they want. I thought in this case it was ill-judged and bad taste.
So do you believe it or not?"The cable tie bit sounds wrong. Could it have been lost in translation? I would like to trust the journalists have verified the stories before going public! So I don’t know. However, that feels like a distraction from the bigger story and point of the thread. As I have said. | |||
"In my naivity, I simply don’t understand the principle behind our returning “refugees” from God knows where back to France simply because that’s where their rubber dinghy came from; or in this case from Greece back to Turkey (if they’re lucky). If they really ARE oppressed and fleeing from danger, they were surely safe as soon as they crossed the border to the NEAREST safe country? We should be considering shipping anybody from Ethiopa to, say, Kenya or from Chad to Nigeria. And how about the Saudis welcoming their neighbours from Yemen or, currently, Egypt and Jordan the thousands of starving in Gaza and the West Bank? Yeah, I don’t think so… So in the meantime we carry on with pointless discussions like this between “Let the poor sods - anybody in fact - come to anywhere of their own choosing” and “Enough is enough”" The trouble with that argument is two fold: 1. International law says you can claim asylum in any country once you are in that country. There is no requirement to do so in the first safe country (maybe there should be but there isn’t). 2. As many of the world’s problem areas are concentrated in a smallish set of regions, the pressure of looking after all these asylum seekers and refugees will always fall on the same few countries (Turkey has millions of Syrians living in camps). | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes.
I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting.
And my comment to the other poster was that I didn’t think this thread warranted humour, or it was poor taste. It doesn’t matter if one element is questionable. Of course people can post what they want. I thought in this case it was ill-judged and bad taste.
So do you believe it or not?
The cable tie bit sounds wrong. Could it have been lost in translation? I would like to trust the journalists have verified the stories before going public! So I don’t know. However, that feels like a distraction from the bigger story and point of the thread. As I have said."If you didn't want it to be a distraction, you shouldn't have provided it as a separate text. I would've hoped someone of your intelligence had done at least a little 'due diligence thinking' before providing it. | |||
| |||
| |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes.
I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting.
And my comment to the other poster was that I didn’t think this thread warranted humour, or it was poor taste. It doesn’t matter if one element is questionable. Of course people can post what they want. I thought in this case it was ill-judged and bad taste.
So do you believe it or not?
The cable tie bit sounds wrong. Could it have been lost in translation? I would like to trust the journalists have verified the stories before going public! So I don’t know. However, that feels like a distraction from the bigger story and point of the thread. As I have said.
If you didn't want it to be a distraction, you shouldn't have provided it as a separate text.
I would've hoped someone of your intelligence had done at least a little 'due diligence thinking' before providing it. "FFS are you for real!?????!!!!! Get outta here and engage in the topic instead of trying to score points! You are just making yourself look petty a pathetic! Do better. Be better! | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. " Which bit say's science isn't real I'm bot reading that fucking thing myself so please tell me | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes.
I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting.
And my comment to the other poster was that I didn’t think this thread warranted humour, or it was poor taste. It doesn’t matter if one element is questionable. Of course people can post what they want. I thought in this case it was ill-judged and bad taste.
So do you believe it or not?
The cable tie bit sounds wrong. Could it have been lost in translation? I would like to trust the journalists have verified the stories before going public! So I don’t know. However, that feels like a distraction from the bigger story and point of the thread. As I have said.
If you didn't want it to be a distraction, you shouldn't have provided it as a separate text.
I would've hoped someone of your intelligence had done at least a little 'due diligence thinking' before providing it.
FFS are you for real!?????!!!!! Get outta here and engage in the topic instead of trying to score points! You are just making yourself look petty a pathetic! Do better. Be better!"You provided it. You don't get to jump on your high horse when it suits. I did engage by replying to something YOU posted. As previously stated, if you didn't want it to be a distraction, then don't post it. What's really fucking petty is providing something and then complaining that someone engages with it. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes.
I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting.
And my comment to the other poster was that I didn’t think this thread warranted humour, or it was poor taste. It doesn’t matter if one element is questionable. Of course people can post what they want. I thought in this case it was ill-judged and bad taste.
So do you believe it or not?
The cable tie bit sounds wrong. Could it have been lost in translation? I would like to trust the journalists have verified the stories before going public! So I don’t know. However, that feels like a distraction from the bigger story and point of the thread. As I have said.
If you didn't want it to be a distraction, you shouldn't have provided it as a separate text.
I would've hoped someone of your intelligence had done at least a little 'due diligence thinking' before providing it.
FFS are you for real!?????!!!!! Get outta here and engage in the topic instead of trying to score points! You are just making yourself look petty a pathetic! Do better. Be better!
You provided it. You don't get to jump on your high horse when it suits.
I did engage by replying to something YOU posted. As previously stated, if you didn't want it to be a distraction, then don't post it.
What's really fucking petty is providing something and then complaining that someone engages with it. "It really isn’t. Why focus on one aspect of a far broader issue? Especially when I have clearly said that the thread is not really about what the Greeks are doing but to discuss what we should do! That is quite clear but you do you and pick on something for…reasons! You do have form for doing that. Regularly. Not sure if you just like to act like an arse or if it is a deliberate ploy to detail discussions? It’s a shame because this thread has seen a pretty good discussion apart from you! Now do you want to discuss the wider topic? | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. Which bit say's science isn't real I'm bot reading that fucking thing myself so please tell me" Just read their environment/energy section. | |||
""They threw me zip-tied in the middle of the sea. They wanted me to die," he said. He said he managed to survive by floating on his back, before one of his hands broke free from the ligature. I call bullshit on that one. Cable ties are impossible to escape from if your hands are behind your back. There's no way one of his hands miraculously came free. *************************************** They were Chinese cable ties........
I’d say this subject might not warrant humour, but maybe that’s just me
Do you take this story seriously?
The guy was zip tied behind his back and thrown into a choppy sea. Managed to get onto his back and float for 12 miles (at least). Break free and reach the coast, whilst people around him died.
The whole article and thread topic yes.
I was speaking specifically on the 'zip-tie' story, hence that's the one I replied quoting.
And my comment to the other poster was that I didn’t think this thread warranted humour, or it was poor taste. It doesn’t matter if one element is questionable. Of course people can post what they want. I thought in this case it was ill-judged and bad taste.
So do you believe it or not?
The cable tie bit sounds wrong. Could it have been lost in translation? I would like to trust the journalists have verified the stories before going public! So I don’t know. However, that feels like a distraction from the bigger story and point of the thread. As I have said.
If you didn't want it to be a distraction, you shouldn't have provided it as a separate text.
I would've hoped someone of your intelligence had done at least a little 'due diligence thinking' before providing it.
FFS are you for real!?????!!!!! Get outta here and engage in the topic instead of trying to score points! You are just making yourself look petty a pathetic! Do better. Be better!
You provided it. You don't get to jump on your high horse when it suits.
I did engage by replying to something YOU posted. As previously stated, if you didn't want it to be a distraction, then don't post it.
What's really fucking petty is providing something and then complaining that someone engages with it.
It really isn’t. Why focus on one aspect of a far broader issue? Especially when I have clearly said that the thread is not really about what the Greeks are doing but to discuss what we should do! That is quite clear but you do you and pick on something for…reasons!
You do have form for doing that. Regularly. Not sure if you just like to act like an arse or if it is a deliberate ploy to detail discussions?
It’s a shame because this thread has seen a pretty good discussion apart from you!
Now do you want to discuss the wider topic?"How the fuck am I derailing by responding to YOUR post? In fact, don't worry, I bow down to your superiority, oh dear one. | |||
"Sounds like they made a poor decision going to Greece. If they’d come to the UK they could have been whiling away their time in the spa of a nice hotel somewhere. Before getting a job as an NHS surgeon obviously. Shock effort aside, what is YOUR solution? My solution to what? Do you want us to invade Greece? Sad things happen everywhere every day. Unfortunately not everything can be solved by the UK getting involved. In fact it usually makes things worse as we have zero idea what we are doing. To be honest I wish someone would just fix the potholes in my road and pick up the trash. Ah ok I guess I wasn’t clear as I thought the thrust of the thread was understandable? How would YOU solve the boat crossings in the channel from France to UK. I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? According to the Reform manifesto it is. Their manifesto also claims that science isn't real, so probably not the best source of information. Which bit say's science isn't real I'm bot reading that fucking thing myself so please tell me Just read their environment/energy section." I've read it. Which part says science isn't real? Come on Johnny, prove you're not a bot and let's see you actually answer a direct question. | |||
| |||
"Do be honest OP, am surprised your shocked that this happens. There's a lot of nasty people who purposely join institutions of authority so they can abuse the power and trust given to them. In countries with less checks and balances than the UK, am sure its happening more than is known. In the Indian sub continent foe example, the police regularly release arrested criminals in remote locations and tell them they are free to go and to run. Then shoot them in the back and file a report that the criminal was shot in a gun fight." ______ You think we operate to a higher standard than other nations? You have to be joking. Those of you looking for clarity on what is (or what isn't) legal are likely to be disappointed. These are grey areas. What I don't get is why we are talking about the law of the sea when, in reality, this is about Article 14 rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, These are regulated by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951. However to claim refugee status (aka political asylum) you have to present yourself to the authorities on arriving in the country of destination. You can't do it on a rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean or the English Channel. If you are able to make it to dry land or gatecrash an embassy or consulate in your home country and apply for asylum, the convention stipulates "No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In reality this should not preclude the UK from returning newly landed refugees to France, but the French government is not obliged to accept them. They will say that they were not the intended destination, but just a stopping point on the journey. This is why we have been having so many conversations about "stopping the boats". (As an aside it's why HMG was so keen to establish that Rwanda was a safe place to offload refugees: if it wasn't safe we would be in breach of our treaty obligations. Cynics like me usually want to ponder a little on whether “it's safe because we say it is" accurately reflects the true picture.) Again, for the avoidance of doubt, pushbacks are defined by the UN as "measures, actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees." As such, they are not in keeping with Convention rights and it is likely that the Courts would find thrm unlawful. Similarly laws passed by the Italian Government limiting the number of rescue attempts a captain may make clearly fall foul of international maritime law. | |||
"Do be honest OP, am surprised your shocked that this happens. There's a lot of nasty people who purposely join institutions of authority so they can abuse the power and trust given to them. In countries with less checks and balances than the UK, am sure its happening more than is known. In the Indian sub continent foe example, the police regularly release arrested criminals in remote locations and tell them they are free to go and to run. Then shoot them in the back and file a report that the criminal was shot in a gun fight. ______ You think we operate to a higher standard than other nations? You have to be joking. Those of you looking for clarity on what is (or what isn't) legal are likely to be disappointed. These are grey areas. What I don't get is why we are talking about the law of the sea when, in reality, this is about Article 14 rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, These are regulated by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951. However to claim refugee status (aka political asylum) you have to present yourself to the authorities on arriving in the country of destination. You can't do it on a rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean or the English Channel. If you are able to make it to dry land or gatecrash an embassy or consulate in your home country and apply for asylum, the convention stipulates "No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In reality this should not preclude the UK from returning newly landed refugees to France, but the French government is not obliged to accept them. They will say that they were not the intended destination, but just a stopping point on the journey. This is why we have been having so many conversations about "stopping the boats". (As an aside it's why HMG was so keen to establish that Rwanda was a safe place to offload refugees: if it wasn't safe we would be in breach of our treaty obligations. Cynics like me usually want to ponder a little on whether “it's safe because we say it is" accurately reflects the true picture.) Again, for the avoidance of doubt, pushbacks are defined by the UN as "measures, actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees." As such, they are not in keeping with Convention rights and it is likely that the Courts would find thrm unlawful. Similarly laws passed by the Italian Government limiting the number of rescue attempts a captain may make clearly fall foul of international maritime law. " So what do we do if the level of crossings/number of asylum seekers just continues to grow? What is the legal solution? | |||
"Do be honest OP, am surprised your shocked that this happens. There's a lot of nasty people who purposely join institutions of authority so they can abuse the power and trust given to them. In countries with less checks and balances than the UK, am sure its happening more than is known. In the Indian sub continent foe example, the police regularly release arrested criminals in remote locations and tell them they are free to go and to run. Then shoot them in the back and file a report that the criminal was shot in a gun fight. ______ You think we operate to a higher standard than other nations? You have to be joking. Those of you looking for clarity on what is (or what isn't) legal are likely to be disappointed. These are grey areas. What I don't get is why we are talking about the law of the sea when, in reality, this is about Article 14 rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, These are regulated by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951. However to claim refugee status (aka political asylum) you have to present yourself to the authorities on arriving in the country of destination. You can't do it on a rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean or the English Channel. If you are able to make it to dry land or gatecrash an embassy or consulate in your home country and apply for asylum, the convention stipulates "No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In reality this should not preclude the UK from returning newly landed refugees to France, but the French government is not obliged to accept them. They will say that they were not the intended destination, but just a stopping point on the journey. This is why we have been having so many conversations about "stopping the boats". (As an aside it's why HMG was so keen to establish that Rwanda was a safe place to offload refugees: if it wasn't safe we would be in breach of our treaty obligations. Cynics like me usually want to ponder a little on whether “it's safe because we say it is" accurately reflects the true picture.) Again, for the avoidance of doubt, pushbacks are defined by the UN as "measures, actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees." As such, they are not in keeping with Convention rights and it is likely that the Courts would find thrm unlawful. Similarly laws passed by the Italian Government limiting the number of rescue attempts a captain may make clearly fall foul of international maritime law. So what do we do if the level of crossings/number of asylum seekers just continues to grow? What is the legal solution?" According to Starmer, he is going to introduce a cross border police unit, that will do the trick. Not sure what’s happening to the existing border force, other than having to sew an extra word onto their uniforms. The simplest way of dealing with this issue is to remove the loopholes that allow people to basically do as they please. That however will make some people very angry, because, well just because it does. | |||
"Do be honest OP, am surprised your shocked that this happens. There's a lot of nasty people who purposely join institutions of authority so they can abuse the power and trust given to them. In countries with less checks and balances than the UK, am sure its happening more than is known. In the Indian sub continent foe example, the police regularly release arrested criminals in remote locations and tell them they are free to go and to run. Then shoot them in the back and file a report that the criminal was shot in a gun fight. ______ You think we operate to a higher standard than other nations? You have to be joking. Those of you looking for clarity on what is (or what isn't) legal are likely to be disappointed. These are grey areas. What I don't get is why we are talking about the law of the sea when, in reality, this is about Article 14 rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, These are regulated by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951. However to claim refugee status (aka political asylum) you have to present yourself to the authorities on arriving in the country of destination. You can't do it on a rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean or the English Channel. If you are able to make it to dry land or gatecrash an embassy or consulate in your home country and apply for asylum, the convention stipulates "No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In reality this should not preclude the UK from returning newly landed refugees to France, but the French government is not obliged to accept them. They will say that they were not the intended destination, but just a stopping point on the journey. This is why we have been having so many conversations about "stopping the boats". (As an aside it's why HMG was so keen to establish that Rwanda was a safe place to offload refugees: if it wasn't safe we would be in breach of our treaty obligations. Cynics like me usually want to ponder a little on whether “it's safe because we say it is" accurately reflects the true picture.) Again, for the avoidance of doubt, pushbacks are defined by the UN as "measures, actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees." As such, they are not in keeping with Convention rights and it is likely that the Courts would find thrm unlawful. Similarly laws passed by the Italian Government limiting the number of rescue attempts a captain may make clearly fall foul of international maritime law. So what do we do if the level of crossings/number of asylum seekers just continues to grow? What is the legal solution? According to Starmer, he is going to introduce a cross border police unit, that will do the trick. Not sure what’s happening to the existing border force, other than having to sew an extra word onto their uniforms. The simplest way of dealing with this issue is to remove the loopholes that allow people to basically do as they please. That however will make some people very angry, because, well just because it does. " Which loopholes? If UN treaties state anyone can claim asylum anywhere once they are in that country (with no requirement of stopping in the first safe country) then what can you do? Surely the priority needs to be quicker processing to establish legitimacy of the asylum claim? Also, in our case, processing centres abroad (such as in France) but that would clearly require France to be happy to have British facilities on their soil. If it was the other way around would we allow that? I have said this before, IMO we need to build a proper facility near to where the landings are. A processing centre with accommodation and facilities (yes a camp but decent with shop and training facilities, school, GP, etc). Stop spending a fortune on hotels. Building the centre and running/maintaining it will create jobs for the local community. It also means the authorities can keep tabs on asylum seekers while being processed. The people in the camp can develop skills (or more to the point, refresh the skills they claim to have). There might even be an element of self sufficiency by having allotments to grow vegetables? It can have a timetable with classes to provide some structure to the day (as at present you hear stories of asylum seekers just hanging around on the streets with nothing to do). | |||
"Do be honest OP, am surprised your shocked that this happens. There's a lot of nasty people who purposely join institutions of authority so they can abuse the power and trust given to them. In countries with less checks and balances than the UK, am sure its happening more than is known. In the Indian sub continent foe example, the police regularly release arrested criminals in remote locations and tell them they are free to go and to run. Then shoot them in the back and file a report that the criminal was shot in a gun fight. ______ You think we operate to a higher standard than other nations? You have to be joking. Those of you looking for clarity on what is (or what isn't) legal are likely to be disappointed. These are grey areas. What I don't get is why we are talking about the law of the sea when, in reality, this is about Article 14 rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, These are regulated by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951. However to claim refugee status (aka political asylum) you have to present yourself to the authorities on arriving in the country of destination. You can't do it on a rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean or the English Channel. If you are able to make it to dry land or gatecrash an embassy or consulate in your home country and apply for asylum, the convention stipulates "No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In reality this should not preclude the UK from returning newly landed refugees to France, but the French government is not obliged to accept them. They will say that they were not the intended destination, but just a stopping point on the journey. This is why we have been having so many conversations about "stopping the boats". (As an aside it's why HMG was so keen to establish that Rwanda was a safe place to offload refugees: if it wasn't safe we would be in breach of our treaty obligations. Cynics like me usually want to ponder a little on whether “it's safe because we say it is" accurately reflects the true picture.) Again, for the avoidance of doubt, pushbacks are defined by the UN as "measures, actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees." As such, they are not in keeping with Convention rights and it is likely that the Courts would find thrm unlawful. Similarly laws passed by the Italian Government limiting the number of rescue attempts a captain may make clearly fall foul of international maritime law. So what do we do if the level of crossings/number of asylum seekers just continues to grow? What is the legal solution? According to Starmer, he is going to introduce a cross border police unit, that will do the trick. Not sure what’s happening to the existing border force, other than having to sew an extra word onto their uniforms. The simplest way of dealing with this issue is to remove the loopholes that allow people to basically do as they please. That however will make some people very angry, because, well just because it does. Which loopholes? If UN treaties state anyone can claim asylum anywhere once they are in that country (with no requirement of stopping in the first safe country) then what can you do? Surely the priority needs to be quicker processing to establish legitimacy of the asylum claim? Also, in our case, processing centres abroad (such as in France) but that would clearly require France to be happy to have British facilities on their soil. If it was the other way around would we allow that? I have said this before, IMO we need to build a proper facility near to where the landings are. A processing centre with accommodation and facilities (yes a camp but decent with shop and training facilities, school, GP, etc). Stop spending a fortune on hotels. Building the centre and running/maintaining it will create jobs for the local community. It also means the authorities can keep tabs on asylum seekers while being processed. The people in the camp can develop skills (or more to the point, refresh the skills they claim to have). There might even be an element of self sufficiency by having allotments to grow vegetables? It can have a timetable with classes to provide some structure to the day (as at present you hear stories of asylum seekers just hanging around on the streets with nothing to do). " This seems like a much better option than trafficking very small numbers over to Rwanda for 100s of millions. | |||
"Do be honest OP, am surprised your shocked that this happens. There's a lot of nasty people who purposely join institutions of authority so they can abuse the power and trust given to them. In countries with less checks and balances than the UK, am sure its happening more than is known. In the Indian sub continent foe example, the police regularly release arrested criminals in remote locations and tell them they are free to go and to run. Then shoot them in the back and file a report that the criminal was shot in a gun fight. ______ You think we operate to a higher standard than other nations? You have to be joking. Those of you looking for clarity on what is (or what isn't) legal are likely to be disappointed. These are grey areas. What I don't get is why we are talking about the law of the sea when, in reality, this is about Article 14 rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, These are regulated by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951. However to claim refugee status (aka political asylum) you have to present yourself to the authorities on arriving in the country of destination. You can't do it on a rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean or the English Channel. If you are able to make it to dry land or gatecrash an embassy or consulate in your home country and apply for asylum, the convention stipulates "No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In reality this should not preclude the UK from returning newly landed refugees to France, but the French government is not obliged to accept them. They will say that they were not the intended destination, but just a stopping point on the journey. This is why we have been having so many conversations about "stopping the boats". (As an aside it's why HMG was so keen to establish that Rwanda was a safe place to offload refugees: if it wasn't safe we would be in breach of our treaty obligations. Cynics like me usually want to ponder a little on whether “it's safe because we say it is" accurately reflects the true picture.) Again, for the avoidance of doubt, pushbacks are defined by the UN as "measures, actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees." As such, they are not in keeping with Convention rights and it is likely that the Courts would find thrm unlawful. Similarly laws passed by the Italian Government limiting the number of rescue attempts a captain may make clearly fall foul of international maritime law. So what do we do if the level of crossings/number of asylum seekers just continues to grow? What is the legal solution? According to Starmer, he is going to introduce a cross border police unit, that will do the trick. Not sure what’s happening to the existing border force, other than having to sew an extra word onto their uniforms. The simplest way of dealing with this issue is to remove the loopholes that allow people to basically do as they please. That however will make some people very angry, because, well just because it does. Which loopholes? If UN treaties state anyone can claim asylum anywhere once they are in that country (with no requirement of stopping in the first safe country) then what can you do? Surely the priority needs to be quicker processing to establish legitimacy of the asylum claim? Also, in our case, processing centres abroad (such as in France) but that would clearly require France to be happy to have British facilities on their soil. If it was the other way around would we allow that? I have said this before, IMO we need to build a proper facility near to where the landings are. A processing centre with accommodation and facilities (yes a camp but decent with shop and training facilities, school, GP, etc). Stop spending a fortune on hotels. Building the centre and running/maintaining it will create jobs for the local community. It also means the authorities can keep tabs on asylum seekers while being processed. The people in the camp can develop skills (or more to the point, refresh the skills they claim to have). There might even be an element of self sufficiency by having allotments to grow vegetables? It can have a timetable with classes to provide some structure to the day (as at present you hear stories of asylum seekers just hanging around on the streets with nothing to do). This seems like a much better option than trafficking very small numbers over to Rwanda for 100s of millions. " I would have thought so: 1. More Humane (it can be a positive experience with somewhere safe, comfortable, and chance to develop/refresh skills) 2. We stay in direct control 3. We have more control (know where people are while being processed) 4. Stops the huge flow of cash into hotels (ergo reduces local community anger and resentment) 5. Removes the perceived threat to local communities from young foreign men hanging around with nothing to do 6. Creates employment 7. For the successful asylum claims it starts the journey of integrating with British society (learn to speak better English, lessons on cultural differences, skills refresh/learn etc) 8. Some employers may even want training/apprenticeship opportunities to develop a useful workforce and provide the first stepping stone out of the facility once accepted for asylum. Etc | |||
"Do be honest OP, am surprised your shocked that this happens. There's a lot of nasty people who purposely join institutions of authority so they can abuse the power and trust given to them. In countries with less checks and balances than the UK, am sure its happening more than is known. In the Indian sub continent foe example, the police regularly release arrested criminals in remote locations and tell them they are free to go and to run. Then shoot them in the back and file a report that the criminal was shot in a gun fight. ______ You think we operate to a higher standard than other nations? You have to be joking. Those of you looking for clarity on what is (or what isn't) legal are likely to be disappointed. These are grey areas. What I don't get is why we are talking about the law of the sea when, in reality, this is about Article 14 rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, These are regulated by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951. However to claim refugee status (aka political asylum) you have to present yourself to the authorities on arriving in the country of destination. You can't do it on a rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean or the English Channel. If you are able to make it to dry land or gatecrash an embassy or consulate in your home country and apply for asylum, the convention stipulates "No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In reality this should not preclude the UK from returning newly landed refugees to France, but the French government is not obliged to accept them. They will say that they were not the intended destination, but just a stopping point on the journey. This is why we have been having so many conversations about "stopping the boats". (As an aside it's why HMG was so keen to establish that Rwanda was a safe place to offload refugees: if it wasn't safe we would be in breach of our treaty obligations. Cynics like me usually want to ponder a little on whether “it's safe because we say it is" accurately reflects the true picture.) Again, for the avoidance of doubt, pushbacks are defined by the UN as "measures, actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees." As such, they are not in keeping with Convention rights and it is likely that the Courts would find thrm unlawful. Similarly laws passed by the Italian Government limiting the number of rescue attempts a captain may make clearly fall foul of international maritime law. So what do we do if the level of crossings/number of asylum seekers just continues to grow? What is the legal solution? According to Starmer, he is going to introduce a cross border police unit, that will do the trick. Not sure what’s happening to the existing border force, other than having to sew an extra word onto their uniforms. The simplest way of dealing with this issue is to remove the loopholes that allow people to basically do as they please. That however will make some people very angry, because, well just because it does. Which loopholes? If UN treaties state anyone can claim asylum anywhere once they are in that country (with no requirement of stopping in the first safe country) then what can you do? Surely the priority needs to be quicker processing to establish legitimacy of the asylum claim? Also, in our case, processing centres abroad (such as in France) but that would clearly require France to be happy to have British facilities on their soil. If it was the other way around would we allow that? I have said this before, IMO we need to build a proper facility near to where the landings are. A processing centre with accommodation and facilities (yes a camp but decent with shop and training facilities, school, GP, etc). Stop spending a fortune on hotels. Building the centre and running/maintaining it will create jobs for the local community. It also means the authorities can keep tabs on asylum seekers while being processed. The people in the camp can develop skills (or more to the point, refresh the skills they claim to have). There might even be an element of self sufficiency by having allotments to grow vegetables? It can have a timetable with classes to provide some structure to the day (as at present you hear stories of asylum seekers just hanging around on the streets with nothing to do). This seems like a much better option than trafficking very small numbers over to Rwanda for 100s of millions. I would have thought so: 1. More Humane (it can be a positive experience with somewhere safe, comfortable, and chance to develop/refresh skills) 2. We stay in direct control 3. We have more control (know where people are while being processed) 4. Stops the huge flow of cash into hotels (ergo reduces local community anger and resentment) 5. Removes the perceived threat to local communities from young foreign men hanging around with nothing to do 6. Creates employment 7. For the successful asylum claims it starts the journey of integrating with British society (learn to speak better English, lessons on cultural differences, skills refresh/learn etc) 8. Some employers may even want training/apprenticeship opportunities to develop a useful workforce and provide the first stepping stone out of the facility once accepted for asylum. Etc" All good points. Doesn't stoke fear and division though. So never going to happen. | |||
"Do be honest OP, am surprised your shocked that this happens. There's a lot of nasty people who purposely join institutions of authority so they can abuse the power and trust given to them. In countries with less checks and balances than the UK, am sure its happening more than is known. In the Indian sub continent foe example, the police regularly release arrested criminals in remote locations and tell them they are free to go and to run. Then shoot them in the back and file a report that the criminal was shot in a gun fight. ______ You think we operate to a higher standard than other nations? You have to be joking. Those of you looking for clarity on what is (or what isn't) legal are likely to be disappointed. These are grey areas. What I don't get is why we are talking about the law of the sea when, in reality, this is about Article 14 rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, These are regulated by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951. However to claim refugee status (aka political asylum) you have to present yourself to the authorities on arriving in the country of destination. You can't do it on a rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean or the English Channel. If you are able to make it to dry land or gatecrash an embassy or consulate in your home country and apply for asylum, the convention stipulates "No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In reality this should not preclude the UK from returning newly landed refugees to France, but the French government is not obliged to accept them. They will say that they were not the intended destination, but just a stopping point on the journey. This is why we have been having so many conversations about "stopping the boats". (As an aside it's why HMG was so keen to establish that Rwanda was a safe place to offload refugees: if it wasn't safe we would be in breach of our treaty obligations. Cynics like me usually want to ponder a little on whether “it's safe because we say it is" accurately reflects the true picture.) Again, for the avoidance of doubt, pushbacks are defined by the UN as "measures, actions or policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants, individually or in groups, without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process guarantees." As such, they are not in keeping with Convention rights and it is likely that the Courts would find thrm unlawful. Similarly laws passed by the Italian Government limiting the number of rescue attempts a captain may make clearly fall foul of international maritime law. So what do we do if the level of crossings/number of asylum seekers just continues to grow? What is the legal solution? According to Starmer, he is going to introduce a cross border police unit, that will do the trick. Not sure what’s happening to the existing border force, other than having to sew an extra word onto their uniforms. The simplest way of dealing with this issue is to remove the loopholes that allow people to basically do as they please. That however will make some people very angry, because, well just because it does. Which loopholes? If UN treaties state anyone can claim asylum anywhere once they are in that country (with no requirement of stopping in the first safe country) then what can you do? Surely the priority needs to be quicker processing to establish legitimacy of the asylum claim? Also, in our case, processing centres abroad (such as in France) but that would clearly require France to be happy to have British facilities on their soil. If it was the other way around would we allow that? I have said this before, IMO we need to build a proper facility near to where the landings are. A processing centre with accommodation and facilities (yes a camp but decent with shop and training facilities, school, GP, etc). Stop spending a fortune on hotels. Building the centre and running/maintaining it will create jobs for the local community. It also means the authorities can keep tabs on asylum seekers while being processed. The people in the camp can develop skills (or more to the point, refresh the skills they claim to have). There might even be an element of self sufficiency by having allotments to grow vegetables? It can have a timetable with classes to provide some structure to the day (as at present you hear stories of asylum seekers just hanging around on the streets with nothing to do). This seems like a much better option than trafficking very small numbers over to Rwanda for 100s of millions. I would have thought so: 1. More Humane (it can be a positive experience with somewhere safe, comfortable, and chance to develop/refresh skills) 2. We stay in direct control 3. We have more control (know where people are while being processed) 4. Stops the huge flow of cash into hotels (ergo reduces local community anger and resentment) 5. Removes the perceived threat to local communities from young foreign men hanging around with nothing to do 6. Creates employment 7. For the successful asylum claims it starts the journey of integrating with British society (learn to speak better English, lessons on cultural differences, skills refresh/learn etc) 8. Some employers may even want training/apprenticeship opportunities to develop a useful workforce and provide the first stepping stone out of the facility once accepted for asylum. Etc All good points. Doesn't stoke fear and division though. So never going to happen. " I hear you. I cannot see how the first world (West) is going to stop or reduce this issue. Assuming Climate Change is real (man made or otherwise) then areas in the planet will become increasingly hostile to human life. This will lead to war as fights break out to control resources. This will lead to people flight and increased claims for asylum. So if numbers increasing are inevitable, we need to find a way to turn it around into a positive. Create opportunities. My facility idea might be a small step towards that? | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?" I don’t think you have ever read any shite on here where you actually think anyone on here would condone that your talking complete rubbish mate get a grip no need for that it’s discusting | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?I don’t think you have ever read any shite on here where you actually think anyone on here would condone that your talking complete rubbish mate get a grip no need for that it’s discusting " I think you missed the irony and nuance
Saying that, while I doubt anyone would be brave enough, I bet there are some who read about what some Greeks are doing and think “hmmm yeah I could go with that” or do you think Brits are immune from whatever is driving that behaviour in some Greeks?
You’ve been posting on here long enough to know my position on most things. Rein your beck in  | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?I don’t think you have ever read any shite on here where you actually think anyone on here would condone that your talking complete rubbish mate get a grip no need for that it’s discusting I think you missed the irony and nuance
Saying that, while I doubt anyone would be brave enough, I bet there are some who read about what some Greeks are doing and think “hmmm yeah I could go with that” or do you think Brits are immune from whatever is driving that behaviour in some Greeks?
You’ve been posting on here long enough to know my position on most things. Rein your beck in "i may be very naive but I can’t imagine anyone who posts on here thinking that you would have to be a total lunatic to ever think that way chucking ppl overboard wtf they should be trialled for murder | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?I don’t think you have ever read any shite on here where you actually think anyone on here would condone that your talking complete rubbish mate get a grip no need for that it’s discusting I think you missed the irony and nuance
Saying that, while I doubt anyone would be brave enough, I bet there are some who read about what some Greeks are doing and think “hmmm yeah I could go with that” or do you think Brits are immune from whatever is driving that behaviour in some Greeks?
You’ve been posting on here long enough to know my position on most things. Rein your beck in i may be very naive but I can’t imagine anyone who posts on here thinking that you would have to be a total lunatic to ever think that way chucking ppl overboard wtf they should be trialled for murder "But you assumed I was suggesting it?
Only you did that. Nobody else. They saw the rhetorical nature of the question and engaged in a pretty good discussion. Except you!
*sigh* | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?I don’t think you have ever read any shite on here where you actually think anyone on here would condone that your talking complete rubbish mate get a grip no need for that it’s discusting I think you missed the irony and nuance
Saying that, while I doubt anyone would be brave enough, I bet there are some who read about what some Greeks are doing and think “hmmm yeah I could go with that” or do you think Brits are immune from whatever is driving that behaviour in some Greeks?
You’ve been posting on here long enough to know my position on most things. Rein your beck in i may be very naive but I can’t imagine anyone who posts on here thinking that you would have to be a total lunatic to ever think that way chucking ppl overboard wtf they should be trialled for murder
But you assumed I was suggesting it?
Only you did that. Nobody else. They saw the rhetorical nature of the question and engaged in a pretty good discussion. Except you!
*sigh*"it was you who said from discussions you’ve seen on here so why mention that lol | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?I don’t think you have ever read any shite on here where you actually think anyone on here would condone that your talking complete rubbish mate get a grip no need for that it’s discusting I think you missed the irony and nuance
Saying that, while I doubt anyone would be brave enough, I bet there are some who read about what some Greeks are doing and think “hmmm yeah I could go with that” or do you think Brits are immune from whatever is driving that behaviour in some Greeks?
You’ve been posting on here long enough to know my position on most things. Rein your beck in i may be very naive but I can’t imagine anyone who posts on here thinking that you would have to be a total lunatic to ever think that way chucking ppl overboard wtf they should be trialled for murder
But you assumed I was suggesting it?
Only you did that. Nobody else. They saw the rhetorical nature of the question and engaged in a pretty good discussion. Except you!
*sigh*it was you who said from discussions you’ve seen on here so why mention that lol"Yep there are a few people on here who would love to reveal their true colours and say what they really think. If you’ve been here long enough you spot the signs. One only has to think back to the pandemic and the Virus forum to recall how that starts to play out! | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?I don’t think you have ever read any shite on here where you actually think anyone on here would condone that your talking complete rubbish mate get a grip no need for that it’s discusting I think you missed the irony and nuance
Saying that, while I doubt anyone would be brave enough, I bet there are some who read about what some Greeks are doing and think “hmmm yeah I could go with that” or do you think Brits are immune from whatever is driving that behaviour in some Greeks?
You’ve been posting on here long enough to know my position on most things. Rein your beck in i may be very naive but I can’t imagine anyone who posts on here thinking that you would have to be a total lunatic to ever think that way chucking ppl overboard wtf they should be trialled for murder
But you assumed I was suggesting it?
Only you did that. Nobody else. They saw the rhetorical nature of the question and engaged in a pretty good discussion. Except you!
*sigh*it was you who said from discussions you’ve seen on here so why mention that lol
Yep there are a few people on here who would love to reveal their true colours and say what they really think. If you’ve been here long enough you spot the signs.
One only has to think back to the pandemic and the Virus forum to recall how that starts to play out!"I have been here long enough and I just can’t see it tbh mate and don’t get me started on covid lockdown mask’s distancing what a load of shit that turned out to be | |||
"BBC documentary tonight… “Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say. The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water. The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found. The Greek coastguard told our investigation it strongly rejects all accusations of illegal activities. We showed footage of 12 people being loaded into a Greek coastguard boat, and then abandoned on a dinghy, to a former senior Greek coastguard officer. When he got up from his chair, and with his mic still on, he said it was "obviously illegal" and "an international crime". The Greek government has long been accused of forced returns - pushing people back towards Turkey, where they have crossed from, which is illegal under international law.” What are people’s thoughts on this? Does anyone condone it and think this is the approach the UK Border Force should take? It feels from discussions on here that there are some posters who would support it? We talk about getting tough and having deterrents. Perhaps killing people would be a better deterrent than flying to Rwanda?I don’t think you have ever read any shite on here where you actually think anyone on here would condone that your talking complete rubbish mate get a grip no need for that it’s discusting I think you missed the irony and nuance
Saying that, while I doubt anyone would be brave enough, I bet there are some who read about what some Greeks are doing and think “hmmm yeah I could go with that” or do you think Brits are immune from whatever is driving that behaviour in some Greeks?
You’ve been posting on here long enough to know my position on most things. Rein your beck in i may be very naive but I can’t imagine anyone who posts on here thinking that you would have to be a total lunatic to ever think that way chucking ppl overboard wtf they should be trialled for murder
But you assumed I was suggesting it?
Only you did that. Nobody else. They saw the rhetorical nature of the question and engaged in a pretty good discussion. Except you!
*sigh*it was you who said from discussions you’ve seen on here so why mention that lol
Yep there are a few people on here who would love to reveal their true colours and say what they really think. If you’ve been here long enough you spot the signs.
One only has to think back to the pandemic and the Virus forum to recall how that starts to play out!I have been here long enough and I just can’t see it tbh mate and don’t get me started on covid lockdown mask’s distancing what a load of shit that turned out to be "Ok well if you don’t see it you don’t see it! I do. You cannot name posters past and present but there are several who I think would not shy away from this “Greek approach”. | |||
| |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route" Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa? | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa?" Very few genuine ones of the first type. Mostly the second type. | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa? Very few genuine ones of the first type. Mostly the second type." If that were true then why are the majority of asylum applications in the UK granted? | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa? Very few genuine ones of the first type. Mostly the second type. If that were true then why are the majority of asylum applications in the UK granted?" Because the rules are too lax, and are not applied rigourously enough. The migrants are coached in what to say, and destroy their ID so they are given the benefit of the doubt. The presumption should be that an applicant is an economic migrant, and has no right to stay unless they can prove otherwise in a short time period. The demographic of the migrants is completely wrong compared with normal refugees etc. Mostly young men claiming to be gay or Christian - way more than the expected percentage of the population. Yes, I know asylum and refugee are different. Asylum should be for the very few, not the default illegal entry. I would expect most fleeing war, famine etc. to be refugees and to comprise mainly women and children or entire families. | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa? Very few genuine ones of the first type. Mostly the second type. If that were true then why are the majority of asylum applications in the UK granted? Because the rules are too lax, and are not applied rigourously enough. The migrants are coached in what to say, and destroy their ID so they are given the benefit of the doubt. The presumption should be that an applicant is an economic migrant, and has no right to stay unless they can prove otherwise in a short time period. The demographic of the migrants is completely wrong compared with normal refugees etc. Mostly young men claiming to be gay or Christian - way more than the expected percentage of the population. Yes, I know asylum and refugee are different. Asylum should be for the very few, not the default illegal entry. I would expect most fleeing war, famine etc. to be refugees and to comprise mainly women and children or entire families." And going further, in 2004 88% of claims were rejected. In 2022 only 24% were rejected. Therefore there has been a significant change, in my view due to the factors I outline above. | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa? Very few genuine ones of the first type. Mostly the second type. If that were true then why are the majority of asylum applications in the UK granted? Because the rules are too lax, and are not applied rigourously enough. The migrants are coached in what to say, and destroy their ID so they are given the benefit of the doubt. The presumption should be that an applicant is an economic migrant, and has no right to stay unless they can prove otherwise in a short time period. The demographic of the migrants is completely wrong compared with normal refugees etc. Mostly young men claiming to be gay or Christian - way more than the expected percentage of the population. Yes, I know asylum and refugee are different. Asylum should be for the very few, not the default illegal entry. I would expect most fleeing war, famine etc. to be refugees and to comprise mainly women and children or entire families." That may or may not be true but do you have evidence to support that? | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa? Very few genuine ones of the first type. Mostly the second type. If that were true then why are the majority of asylum applications in the UK granted? Because the rules are too lax, and are not applied rigourously enough. The migrants are coached in what to say, and destroy their ID so they are given the benefit of the doubt. The presumption should be that an applicant is an economic migrant, and has no right to stay unless they can prove otherwise in a short time period. The demographic of the migrants is completely wrong compared with normal refugees etc. Mostly young men claiming to be gay or Christian - way more than the expected percentage of the population. Yes, I know asylum and refugee are different. Asylum should be for the very few, not the default illegal entry. I would expect most fleeing war, famine etc. to be refugees and to comprise mainly women and children or entire families. That may or may not be true but do you have evidence to support that?" To support which part? I looked at the House of Commons asylum statistics report. It also states the percentages of accepted claims in Europe. These vary wildly, but France accepts less than 30% of applications. | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa?" anyone trying to get into europe illegally through greece by the sounds of it | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa? Very few genuine ones of the first type. Mostly the second type. If that were true then why are the majority of asylum applications in the UK granted? Because the rules are too lax, and are not applied rigourously enough. The migrants are coached in what to say, and destroy their ID so they are given the benefit of the doubt. The presumption should be that an applicant is an economic migrant, and has no right to stay unless they can prove otherwise in a short time period. The demographic of the migrants is completely wrong compared with normal refugees etc. Mostly young men claiming to be gay or Christian - way more than the expected percentage of the population. Yes, I know asylum and refugee are different. Asylum should be for the very few, not the default illegal entry. I would expect most fleeing war, famine etc. to be refugees and to comprise mainly women and children or entire families." In 2022, 2% of asylum claims in the UK (1,334 claims) included sexual orientation as part of the basis for the claim (LGB asylum applications). That's lower than one may expect. | |||
" Yes, I know asylum and refugee are different. Asylum should be for the very few, not the default illegal entry. I would expect most fleeing war, famine etc. to be refugees and to comprise mainly women and children or entire families.In 2022, 2% of asylum claims in the UK (1,334 claims) included sexual orientation as part of the basis for the claim (LGB asylum applications). That's lower than one may expect. " ___________________________ It is much lower than one might expect, and the Home Office has not covered itself in glory when processing them. I say this as somebody who has supported LGBT refugees through the process. For more information on the subject I recommend https://www.kaleidoscopelgbtq.org and https://www.rainbowmigration.org.uk Regrets, I have a few. One is that I was unable to prevent the deportation of a young gay Afghanistani who arrived in the UK on his own aged 13, and was returned to Afghanistan as an adult. The Home Office decision maker did not believe he was gay. There were two problems with that decision. One was that the "test" was biased. It was based on the assumptions that young gay Muslim men would behave like young gay white British males. That's not how it works. In my experience, young gay Muslims are proud to be gay, but are also proud of their culture and heritage. They want to be able to celebrate both, but for obvious reasons feel unable to do so. So they suppress their Muslim identity when engaging with gay friends and hide their gay identity from family and community. The second problem was that the criteria applied to determine his application were unlawful. The test to be applied at that time was whether or not the applicant would be at risk of persecution if returned to the country of origin because they would be perceived to be gay. Anyway he didn't get the chance to say goodbye. He was quickly put on a plane to Kabul, and I never heard from him again. Oh, for clarity, the difference between asylum seeker and refugee is simply this... A refugee is a person who has successfully claimed asylum! | |||
"Lesson here if your an illegal migrant dont go the greece route Does that apply to people seeking asylum or only economic migrants without a visa? Very few genuine ones of the first type. Mostly the second type. If that were true then why are the majority of asylum applications in the UK granted? Because the rules are too lax, and are not applied rigourously enough. The migrants are coached in what to say, and destroy their ID so they are given the benefit of the doubt. The presumption should be that an applicant is an economic migrant, and has no right to stay unless they can prove otherwise in a short time period. The demographic of the migrants is completely wrong compared with normal refugees etc. Mostly young men claiming to be gay or Christian - way more than the expected percentage of the population. Yes, I know asylum and refugee are different. Asylum should be for the very few, not the default illegal entry. I would expect most fleeing war, famine etc. to be refugees and to comprise mainly women and children or entire families." _______________ I have said it elsewhere and I will say it here. By definition, a refugee is a successful asylum seeker. An application for asylum is an application to have your convention rights as a refugee recognised. | |||
" I would put them on a boat and drop them safely on the French coast. If France wants to start a war over it, let them. Is that legal? 2. The first key provision is paragraph 3.1.9 of the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (1979), otherwise known as the SAR convention. Under this, the UK has responsibility for arranging delivery of people in an unsafe craft to a place of safety.[2] There is no obligation under international maritime law for the country that asylum seekers are trying to enter to tolerate them going ashore there.[3] 3. This would not preclude migrants found in British waters being taken to France given that France is a safe country which, for example, as an EU member state, is required by Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union to respect human rights. For an example of how this situation has been addressed outside of Europe, the Australian Maritime Powers Act 2013, amended in 2017, states that a maritime officer may detain a person on a vessel and take the person to a place outside Australia. Section 72 of that Act partially provides for Australia’s implementation of the SAR convention, in terms of setting out a requirement that when Australian officials take somebody to another location, they need to ensure that it is essentially a place of safety. That is a fundamental component of the search and rescue obligations: that when someone in distress is rescued they are taken to a place of safety." Landing someone on French soil requires the agreement of the French government. What is the difference between a people smuggler landing them in Britain and our coast guard landing them in France? | |||
