Cross Channel Migrant Issue

  • Thread starter Deleted 3147
  • Start date

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
SOLAS Regulations. The United Kingdom is signatory of and has ratified the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974

Because Parliament has ratified the Treaty it becomes part of UK municipal (ie domestic) law. As Photex says, it is not discretionary. To not follow some aspects of it that you don't like would be the same as choosing not to apply aspects of IHL (or LOAC, as the Army prefers to call it).
The more things change he more they stay the same...

Slavery advocates argued that nothing could be done due to contract law.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Ah yes! That well known maritime patrol aircraft the Atlas C1!
Realistically, what else would we use?

P-8? Too few and only just entering service - and only really useful for its primary role as a result.

C-130? Maybe.

What MPA fleet/capability do we have, whether military or non-military?
 
The fundamental issue is that repatriation is something HO and DoJ find extraordinarily difficult. Because of this the (correct) perception is that if you make it over the Channel, you ain't going back.

Putting the RN in the front of this effort is nonsensical, but not to the average bloke in the street. If "hordes" of migrants are crossing the channel then that's the sea and the Navy's problem, innit? As others have noted above, putting the RN (or the Border Force) in that position is only making them taxis due to the provisions of UNCLOS/SOLAS. It's not like they're a legitimate target to be brassed up and it's not like you can tow them back to the French 12 mile limit. As soon as you try to turn them back, capsize or foundering, deliberate or consequential will follow - at which point RN/BF Uber rides again. Because no mariner in their right mind would willingly allow boatloads of people to drown through inaction - and rightly so.

Until the arrivals are quarantined, ID'd (not necessarily for country of origin, but just to provide identification should they try again) and then swiftly returned, then the issue is not going away. That is the only measure that will overcome the incentive to the people smugglers business by demonstrating that paying a fortune to cross inevitably results in a swift and uncompensated return. Ultimately the demand part of the equation has to be reduced by making the success probability miniscule.

How this is achieved is the difficult bit and is where the HO/BF/DoJ fall down. Whatever happens we need the agreement of the French to make it work. Probably the first thing that needs to happen is a presumption by the courts that anyone arriving by the sea route cannot be an asylum seeker, as they will by definition have left a "benign" country. This will be very difficult to get in place, partly due to our own yooman rights anti-racist industry, which you can guarantee will sh1t a brick trying to stop this. Because it would then allow automatic repatriation - and derail a substantial proportion of their gravy train.

How they are returned is where we need the French. It is ultimately in their interests to co-operate, because as others point out, parts of Northern France are beginning to resemble refugee camps - and you can see it as far west as Ouistreham, where in the last three years there's been a very noticeable increase in migrant presence. As long as we accept the incomers, then its easier for the French to facilitate. As soon as we make it clear it's going to stop, they will have to do something - and its for their own benefit in the long run.

We could add a couple of transport vans to the back of Eurostar trains and repatriate that way. We could have a ship moored off the French 12nm limit to act as a holding pen for the French to transfer back to theirs. Ultimately we could violate their waters or airspace (mass static line jumps anyone?) if it got serious enough. However, until we make that automatic presumption of return, then it's all largely pointless.

The race lobby will go batsh1t mental - expect Windrush, hostile environment, BLM memes wall to wall. Thing is, until people start to return and look after their own country (especially doctors and engineers!) then said countries will continue to deteriorate and the desire to leave will increase. That large elephant in the room - poor governance of sovereign states - is the ultimate market force driving this.
 
The more things change he more they stay the same...

Slavery advocates argued that nothing could be done due to contract law.
There is a vast gulf between contract law (and law of Torts) and international consitutional law. How would you, in your dystopian world, implement derogations? Declare the Channel a 'no rescue zone for only those in RIBs with dark skin'?
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
The fundamental issue is that repatriation is something HO and DoJ find extraordinarily difficult. Because of this the (correct) perception is that if you make it over the Channel, you ain't going back.

Putting the RN in the front of this effort is nonsensical, but not to the average bloke in the street. If "hordes" of migrants are crossing the channel then that's the sea and the Navy's problem, innit? As others have noted above, putting the RN (or the Border Force) in that position is only making them taxis due to the provisions of UNCLOS/SOLAS. It's not like they're a legitimate target to be brassed up and it's not like you can tow them back to the French 12 mile limit. As soon as you try to turn them back, capsize or foundering, deliberate or consequential will follow - at which point RN/BF Uber rides again. Because no mariner in their right mind would willingly allow boatloads of people to drown through inaction - and rightly so.

Until the arrivals are quarantined, ID'd (not necessarily for country of origin, but just to provide identification should they try again) and then swiftly returned, then the issue is not going away. That is the only measure that will overcome the incentive to the people smugglers business by demonstrating that paying a fortune to cross inevitably results in a swift and uncompensated return. Ultimately the demand part of the equation has to be reduced by making the success probability miniscule.

How this is achieved is the difficult bit and is where the HO/BF/DoJ fall down. Whatever happens we need the agreement of the French to make it work. Probably the first thing that needs to happen is a presumption by the courts that anyone arriving by the sea route cannot be an asylum seeker, as they will by definition have left a "benign" country. This will be very difficult to get in place, partly due to our own yooman rights anti-racist industry, which you can guarantee will sh1t a brick trying to stop this. Because it would then allow automatic repatriation - and derail a substantial proportion of their gravy train.

How they are returned is where we need the French. It is ultimately in their interests to co-operate, because as others point out, parts of Northern France are beginning to resemble refugee camps - and you can see it as far west as Ouistreham, where in the last three years there's been a very noticeable increase in migrant presence. As long as we accept the incomers, then its easier for the French to facilitate. As soon as we make it clear it's going to stop, they will have to do something - and its for their own benefit in the long run.

We could add a couple of transport vans to the back of Eurostar trains and repatriate that way. We could have a ship moored off the French 12nm limit to act as a holding pen for the French to transfer back to theirs. Ultimately we could violate their waters or airspace (mass static line jumps anyone?) if it got serious enough. However, until we make that automatic presumption of return, then it's all largely pointless.

The race lobby will go batsh1t mental - expect Windrush, hostile environment, BLM memes wall to wall. Thing is, until people start to return and look after their own country (especially doctors and engineers!) then said countries will continue to deteriorate and the desire to leave will increase. That large elephant in the room - poor governance of sovereign states - is the ultimate market force driving this.
England expects that every man will.... beg the French to help us....

No this merely a crisis of leadership.

If the border force and RN leadership is so weak that they can't perform their duty then there has to be consequences for that.

Now call me naive but I expect that their duty comes first. And their duty is to protect our shores.
 
I don't know about the cost but I think they're after something which can loiter for a long amount of time, coupled with the ability to fly slow enough. Sentinel and other airframes are (if I remember rightly) unable to fly at the slower speeds that the Atlas can when in an orbit.
Realistically, what else would we use?

P-8? Too few and only just entering service - and only really useful for its primary role as a result.

C-130? Maybe.

What MPA fleet/capability do we have, whether military or non-military?
Last week, we were apparently using a small(er) (twin engined?) civilian "spotter" plane, out of Doncaster airport.

Is that REALLY going to be more expensive than Atlas C-1 . . . ?!

The REAL question is . . . WHY are we even looking for problems/bloody IDIOTS in the Channel ?!
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
There is a vast gulf between contract law (and law of Torts) and international consitutional law. How would you, in your dystopian world, implement derogations? Declare the Channel a 'no rescue zone for only those in RIBs with dark skin'?

Black people in hazardous boats and people like you profitting from their misery.

Cucks will cuck....
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
The REAL question is . . . WHY are we even looking for problems/bloody IDIOTS in the Channel ?!
Because those in permanent power have made a multi billion pound industry out of it.

Serco is a listed company and won a £2.9 billion contract. I wonder who has shares in it?

Now I wouldn't go so far as to assume that some people on this thread might have.... Though it would considerably explain their attitude would it not?
 
England expects that every man will.... beg the French to help us....

No this merely a crisis of leadership.

If the border force and RN leadership is so weak that they can't perform their duty then there has to be consequences for that.

Now call me naive but I expect that their duty comes first. And their duty is to protect our shores.
Whereas you advocating breaching international and domestic law. How has the Royal Navy's leadership been weak? Show working.
 
Because those in permanent power have made a multi billion pound industry out of it.

Serco is a listed company and won a £2.9 billion contract. I wonder who has shares in it?

Now I wouldn't go so far as to assume that some people on this thread might have.... Though it would considerably explain their attitude would it not?
The Illuminati? NWO? A Jewish Cabal of bankers? Who are these people you believe to be in permanent power?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
How this is achieved is the difficult bit and is where the HO/BF/DoJ fall down. Whatever happens we need the agreement of the French to make it work. Probably the first thing that needs to happen is a presumption by the courts that anyone arriving by the sea route cannot be an asylum seeker, as they will by definition have left a "benign" country. This will be very difficult to get in place, partly due to our own yooman rights anti-racist industry, which you can guarantee will sh1t a brick trying to stop this. Because it would then allow automatic repatriation - and derail a substantial proportion of their gravy train.
As I noted previously, Diane Abbott was challenged by a French politician over her nonsense assertion that these people were fleeing tyranny, oppression, death and all things unpleasant.

The people crossing the Channel have left a benign country - by pretty much any definition you can come up with.

Supporting a legal gravy train isn't a priority for the UK. I'd start by making that clear to the profession.
How they are returned is where we need the French. It is ultimately in their interests to co-operate, because as others point out, parts of Northern France are beginning to resemble refugee camps - and you can see it as far west as Ouistreham, where in the last three years there's been a very noticeable increase in migrant presence. As long as we accept the incomers, then its easier for the French to facilitate. As soon as we make it clear it's going to stop, they will have to do something - and its for their own benefit in the long run.
The trouble is, how?

From a distance, it looks very much like the French aren't dong all that they perhaps could to stop people leaving their shores. I can empathise; they want rid of the problem. But at the moment their solution is to make it ours.
We could add a couple of transport vans to the back of Eurostar trains and repatriate that way. We could have a ship moored off the French 12nm limit to act as a holding pen for the French to transfer back to theirs. Ultimately we could violate their waters or airspace (mass static line jumps anyone?) if it got serious enough. However, until we make that automatic presumption of return, then it's all largely pointless.
See above.
The race lobby will go batsh1t mental - expect Windrush, hostile environment, BLM memes wall to wall. Thing is, until people start to return and look after their own country (especially doctors and engineers!) then said countries will continue to deteriorate and the desire to leave will increase. That large elephant in the room - poor governance of sovereign states - is the ultimate market force driving this.
The short answer is, 'So what?!'

Black Lives do indeed Matter. But make that clear to the governments in the countries which are majority black. We're not racist for failing to cope with their failings, as you note.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Last week, we were apparently using a small(er) (twin engined?) civilian "spotter" plane, out of Doncaster airport.

Is that REALLY going to be more expensive than Atlas C-1 . . . ?!
No, and we need another 'un-gapped' capability.
The REAL question is . . . WHY are we even looking for problems/bloody IDIOTS in the Channel ?!
Because people aren't preventing them from leaving France.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Whereas you advocating breaching international and domestic law. How has the Royal Navy's leadership been weak? Show working.
Cuck logic is hilarious...

You advocate and possibly profit from black people paying their life savings to take hazardous journeys in ill equipped boats, and say that anyone who opposes this modern slavery is advocating breaking the law?

Give your head a wobble.
 
I've mentioned many times before on here...

BBC showed pictures of maybe 50 women and children lined up looking sorrowful at, I think Bari. in the hangar.
Reality was - they waited until the 700 blokes were offloaded to the jetty and filmed to look as if it was all women and children.
Electric sockets on warships are not UK standard. Majority had smart phones and had chargers they stripped the wires and plugged directly into various outlets. This caused several alarm bells to ring in HQ1 etc, and also several fights to break out. Also a bit of stabbyness and rape (male).
They were not all Syrians either - mainly Somali/Afghan/Iraqi/Pakistani.

They also took serious offence to direction from female ship's company. To the degree that they started just using blokes to deal with them.

*My info is from a few oppos who were on there at the time. Whether they was bullshitting or not- I do not know.
I can't imagine it though - knowing them etc etc, and what they actually do. They did have a FB 'radio silence' during that period also. Was quite a while after they actually spoke about it.
In the case of these blokes unable to take orders from women , their application should be turned down on the grounds that their lifestyle is incompatible with life in Britain , and that furthermore , the interviewer believes the applicant to be a serious threat to women in the UK .
 
Last edited:

Arkanstigger

War Hero
Cuck logic is hilarious...

You advocate and possibly profit from black people paying their life savings to take hazardous journeys in ill equipped boats, and say that anyone who opposes this modern slavery is advocating breaking the law?

Give your head a wobble.
I'll have a pint of whatever you're drinking.
 

Latest Threads

Top