Cross Channel Migrant Issue

  • Thread starter Deleted 3147
  • Start date
Utter drivel, do try better

AIS is only required on 300gt and larger ships.....the rest is pump too. STAB and CRAB you clearly know sod all about maritime regulations or immigration law.

You make an assumption these people have been able to make a claim at a previous country - so may some might not have (lots of reason why).

Both international refugee law and the UK’s immigration and asylum law protect asylum seekers arriving via unofficial routes (again, provided they make their presence known to authorities). Article 31(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention ensures that State Parties cannot punish refugees and asylum seekers for entering a State via unofficial routes. While Section 31(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 ensures that refugees who arrived as asylum seekers via informal routes should not have this held against them or marked as an immigration offence.

So there in black and white - feel free to disagree with fact.....
Nope, you are the one talking utter drivel, and you know it. Your pathetic pseudo-legal tripe won't go unchallenged here. As well as stabbing and crabbing I did two exchange tours with the RN, so there. What have you done?

The IMO states that "the regulation requires AIS to be fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards not engaged on international voyages and all passenger ships irrespective of size. The requirement became effective for all ships by 31 December 2004."

The illegals are undoubtedly on passenger-carrying vessels. So they are crossing the worlds' busiest shipping lane illegally.

I don't need to make assumptions about their nation of origin or 'why couldn't claim in France'. EU law is quite clear that they should have claimed in the first safe country. Your made-up reasons why do not count.

Your inane dribbling about 'international refugee law', 'UK law' and the '1951 Refugee Convention' makes me laugh. These people have been shown to be, by the law's own definition, NOT asylum seekers nor refugees, but merely illegal immigrants working in collusion with snakeheads. So the 'Section 31(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999' does not apply to them.

You are wrong, and grasping at 'facts' in black and white which do not support your tenuous claims.

Grow up and accept it.
 
Nope - Both international refugee law and the UK’s immigration and asylum law protect asylum seekers arriving via unofficial routes (again, provided they make their presence known to authorities). Article 31(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention ensures that State Parties cannot punish refugees and asylum seekers for entering a State via unofficial routes. While Section 31(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 ensures that refugees who arrived as asylum seekers via informal routes should not have this held against them or marked as an immigration offence.
Nope - you have been picked up on this point of fact before and shown to be wrong.

Copy and pasting the same tripe again and again doesn't make you any less wrong.

Be careful or you may get ROPs for being a spammer.
 
Apparently as far as the present boat people are concerned, if they land on a UK beach under their own steam, they are classed as having entered illegally. If they are picked up by Border Force or RNLI taxi service in the channel then they are not illegal immigrants. There was a chap, a SME in the subject on the Nigel Farage show who clarified the position.
I think it best then to keep the cutters in port and take back the taxpayers money from the RNLI too.
Let's see how long they sustain the full time operation that it currently is.
Firm but fair and proportionate in the current circumstances that the UK finds itself in.
 

Londo

LE
I think it best then to keep the cutters in port and take back the taxpayers money from the RNLI too.
Let's see how long they sustain the full time operation that it currently is.
Firm but fair and proportionate in the current circumstances that the UK finds itself in.
Try my sharper boathooks idea first though

I like a good sinkex in the morning .
 
Addressing this, people keep referring to "illegals" and "illegal" entry. I included two links earlier which go to evidence that actually as the law sees it now, people crossing the channel and getting to the UK to claim asylum aren't breaking any laws and are not illegal. Hence I'm addressing the perceptions and opinions of others who are incorrect. But as I see it facts don't wash here, it's easier to read the Daily Mail than understand the causes and issues at play.

That this may be a position about to change under the incoming Immigration and Asylum Bill (or Nationality & Borders act can't recall what its titled) which would be where the legal position is resolved and then UK entities can start to enact different strategies seems to be equally lost on people who think Government does nothing.

Anything factual here you want to debate feel free, I note that in any post where I challenge anyone to refute or address anything I've stated there is never a factual challenge just a diatribe of fluff.
How about if they cross the channel to fraudulently claim asylum, using falsehoods as their case for it to be granted? I am pretty certain there are laws against that, making their presence and fraudulent claim illegal?
 
I won't use this for long, I rarely bother too much with social media. The last 48hrs has been stop/start and this has been interesting in a number of ways but I've a life away from keyboards,
I thought you had made your excuses, and left . . . and yet, you re-appeared ;) .

Did you conclude your research? Was a plan produced? Was it submitted? How was it received? Was it accepted?

Do you still have "a life away from keyboards"?

You posted that you "rarely bother too much with social media", and yet here you are, drawn-in, and unable to ignore the irresistible attraction that is participating on ARRSE.

There are some of us, who have been "treading these (message) boards" for fifteen years, and others much longer . . . now with sunken, lifeless, eyes . . . sallow complections . . . repetitive strain injuries to our typing hands . . . and the onset of obesity from our sedentary existence.

I do hope you took-your-leave of your loved-ones ;) .
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I thought you had made your excuses, and left . . . and yet, you re-appeared ;) .

Did you conclude your research? Was a plan produced? Was it submitted? How was it received? Was it accepted?

Do you still have "a life away from keyboards"?

You posted that you "rarely bother too much with social media", and yet here you are, drawn-in, and unable to ignore the irresistible attraction that is participating on ARRSE.

There are some of us, who have been "treading these (message) boards" for fifteen years, and others much longer . . . now with sunken, lifeless, eyes . . . sallow complections . . . repetitive strain injuries to our typing hands . . . and the onset of obesity from our sedentary existence.

I do hope you took-your-leave of your loved-ones ;) .
*insert Emperor Palpatine meme here.
 
I won't use this for long, I rarely bother too much with social media. The last 48hrs has been stop/start and this has been interesting in a number of ways but I've a life away from keyboards,
I thought you were going back to your awesome life full of interesting and fulfilling events? Have you taken your ball home?

You are Jordan Belfort and I claim my £5.
 
Nope - you have been picked up on this point of fact before and shown to be wrong.

Copy and pasting the same tripe again and again doesn't make you any less wrong.

Be careful or you may get ROPs for being a spammer.
Shown to be wrong, it's the law as written and conformed to today.

This truly is a great example of people choosing to ignore reality.
 
Last edited:
How about if they cross the channel to fraudulently claim asylum, using falsehoods as their case for it to be granted? I am pretty certain there are laws against that, making their presence and fraudulent claim illegal?
Doesn't work like that. They arrive, then their claims are investigated and researched. Not sure how IE would prove fraudulent claims of asylum without doing the research, which is what happens and why the asylum seekers spend time being processed.
 
I thought you had made your excuses, and left . . . and yet, you re-appeared ;) .

Did you conclude your research? Was a plan produced? Was it submitted? How was it received? Was it accepted?

Do you still have "a life away from keyboards"?

You posted that you "rarely bother too much with social media", and yet here you are, drawn-in, and unable to ignore the irresistible attraction that is participating on ARRSE.

There are some of us, who have been "treading these (message) boards" for fifteen years, and others much longer . . . now with sunken, lifeless, eyes . . . sallow complections . . . repetitive strain injuries to our typing hands . . . and the onset of obesity from our sedentary existence.

I do hope you took-your-leave of your loved-ones ;) .
I pop in as I have done for years to see if there is anything of interest.

The family and I had a great LWE away skiing thank-you
 
Nope, you are the one talking utter drivel, and you know it. Your pathetic pseudo-legal tripe won't go unchallenged here. As well as stabbing and crabbing I did two exchange tours with the RN, so there. What have you done?

The IMO states that "the regulation requires AIS to be fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards not engaged on international voyages and all passenger ships irrespective of size. The requirement became effective for all ships by 31 December 2004."

The illegals are undoubtedly on passenger-carrying vessels. So they are crossing the worlds' busiest shipping lane illegally.

I don't need to make assumptions about their nation of origin or 'why couldn't claim in France'. EU law is quite clear that they should have claimed in the first safe country. Your made-up reasons why do not count.

Your inane dribbling about 'international refugee law', 'UK law' and the '1951 Refugee Convention' makes me laugh. These people have been shown to be, by the law's own definition, NOT asylum seekers nor refugees, but merely illegal immigrants working in collusion with snakeheads. So the 'Section 31(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999' does not apply to them.

You are wrong, and grasping at 'facts' in black and white which do not support your tenuous claims.

Grow up and accept it.
Oh dear god what bilge......

OK. So put simply, your perception doesn't count. MCA, Border Force et al have to operate under a legal framework. The laws I outlined, you may not agree or recognise them, but they are the laws in force today. It really is that simple.

To be clear, I've described the law as written. You've not disproven anything in regard to this. No fact, no other contrary laws produced. You've just spouted an incorrect perception. Feel free to post anything that actually shows I'm wrong.

You've then decided to quote part of IMO regulations pertaining to AIS but clearly don't understand it. There is no requirement for small commercial vessels (which may carry passengers) or cruising yachts to carry AIS, you can check with RYA. There are stacks of yachties on ARRSE and you may even know some - very very few operate AIS (its voluntary), yet they by your IMO definition could be passenger ships (12 pax), the same for RHIBs (which are the normal mode of crossing). Another view is RHIBs/Yachts are boats, only become ships past 120ft. Its just not wholly well defined. I actually think all vessels should transmit on AIS as its so cheap and small these days but that's another matter.

The wider point here, it's utterly irrelevant if they sail across on a RHIB, Yacht, rubber lilo or a 40m Princess. The act of using an irregular route is the key not whether their vessel is seaworthy.

Instead of being childish. Just step back accept you may not like it but it's how it is.
 
Last edited:
The family and I had a great LWE away skiing thank-you
Pays well being in the gravy train does it?
Instead of being childish. Just step back accept you may not like it but it's how it is.
So you think the present system of thousands of irregular entrants travelling through safe countries, paying large sums to people smuggling gangs crossing the channel should carry on do you? And being unable to deport them when their asylum claims are refused?

Most people are quite happy to see genuine asylum seekers in real and immediate need of protection being admitted. But the present system is unacceptable. To say it is all to difficult because of present laws is just b*llocks. Change the law, withdraw from treaties. Thats what the government was elected to do. Australia has managed to do it. They signed up to the 1951 UN Convention. The same with Denmark and they are still in the EU and now have a left wing socialist govenment.

Are you working with one of these NGO's and making a nice living out of the present system.
 

auggie rock

Old-Salt
No one has shown me to be wrong, you're utterly deluded and just trying to he smart, but failing badly.
I've said it before and I will, no doubt, say it again. ALL BOAT MIGRANTS arriving at Dover ARE ARRESTED for immigration offences upon setting foot on UK soil. Unless I'm missing something that makes them "illegals".
 
Pays well being in the gravy train does it?

So you think the present system of thousands of irregular entrants travelling through safe countries, paying large sums to people smuggling gangs crossing the channel should carry on do you? And being unable to deport them when their asylum claims are refused?

Most people are quite happy to see genuine asylum seekers in real and immediate need of protection being admitted. But the present system is unacceptable. To say it is all to difficult because of present laws is just b*llocks. Change the law, withdraw from treaties. Thats what the government was elected to do. Australia has managed to do it. They signed up to the 1951 UN Convention. The same with Denmark and they are still in the EU and now have a left wing socialist govenment.

Are you working with one of these NGO's and making a nice living out of the present system.
I keep my opinions out of this. I am simply presenting facts where I see people mocking the efforts of others from positions of misinformed perceptions.

Read my posts in slower time before knee jerk responding. If you do that you'll notice, that MoD have been brought in to reinforce the safety at sea and immigration processing and new laws are about to be brought in to support this.

So I'm struggling to see why you think your penultimate paragraph isn't being addressed? If you think it should be quicker you need to consider the implications of withdrawing from laws for our wider citizens and how much of these laws are written into our laws. When there is so much interdependence and different concerns at stake it takes a lot of considertion and judgement/testing before changes are proposed, this never moves quickly.
 
Top