Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cross Channel Migrant Issue

  • Thread starter Deleted 3147
  • Start date
Long way to say the document isn't relevant. Thanks for your service.
The Dublin III Regulation is exactly relevant. That regulation's what allows us to send them back. A quick yahoogle search will prove that. If you can't be bothered to look for it that's up to you. I'm not doing it for you.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
Is the Home Office actually 'stamping their feet' and 'demanding' [your words] that the MoD help or are they asking for that help, knowing that the situation has become so serious that it is now unmanageable without additional support? Shouldn't different government departments assist each other in times of need rather than throw each other to the wolves?
My understanding is that the HO will 'request' RN support. The theory of this has already been considered and its not an easy outcome for the RN.

We're stretched as it is, this is additional tasking and far from traditonal supporting MACA, this potentially puts RN vessels in an awkward position. Legally I don't believe there is much an RN CO could do. Can you imagine the press when we turn around a makeshift raft, swamp one or have to take migrants onboard for safety and they claim asylum? The cynic in me thinks this is a great Whitehall play to pass the buck. If it all works beautifully HO will take the credit, the slightest problem and the RN will be the stooge.

I'd ask do the other Government departments actually do enough? Up at NMIC you've NCA, DfT, BF, MCA, Civ Police and HRMC. The RN seems to be pulling more than its share of the weight, while the rest squabble over primacy.

This crisis has definitely not been helped by a lack of willpower and backbone at the political level. Are the French doing enough or are they deliberately dragging their feet and hiding at the point the gimmegrants depart French shores.

I know that at some level the French are co-operating with UK law enforcement as this article shows, Three convicted in France as part of cross-Channel people smuggling investigation, but is it enough?
So, via the treaty of Sandhurst we're providing France with additional funds to police the shoreline and areas leading up to it. There's a lot more cooperation (I assume) via BF and NCA.
 
I read recently that we shouldn't blame the traffickers for sending the illegals across the Channel, but blame our government/s for making our welfare and benefits system too generous to illegal immigrants.

For me, if the authorities really wanted to target the trafficking gangs, follow the trail of all these new boats and life jackets the illegals seem to wear.
I find it quite astonishing that the French have such little apparent control of their coastine (definitely not in the way that the Germans did in 1944, for instance) that they allow unhindered departure of fee-paying passenger boats - clearly overloaded and unsuitable for offshore travel - bought complete with outboard engines and lifesaving equipment, uninsured and captained by Some Bloke with no compass. That Bloke himself should be put on trial, along with the owners of the leaky rib.

A legal case could surely be brought against them. Endangerment, negligence, failure to abide by international rules of the sea... Should be worth £30m, I think.
 
I read recently that we shouldn't blame the traffickers for sending the illegals across the Channel, but blame our government/s for making our welfare and benefits system too generous to illegal immigrants.

For me, if the authorities really wanted to target the trafficking gangs, follow the trail of all these new boats and life jackets the illegals seem to wear.

Too right !
Where are these boats bought from ?
I mean - are Amazon complicit in this human trafficking ?
Don't they have an App thing - or a sub - routine , or something that says ....

'Trusted buyer, bought 300 x 10 man inflateables , 300 x 5hp outboards and 7000 budget lifejackets - all in the last month '

It could be a lead.
 
Yoooooo Hoooooooo, @Jimmy_Green care to reply?

I do have other things to be getting on with other than being glued to ARRSE, so no.

However, you asked how we can legally send people back and I pointed you in the right direction - the answer is contained within the Dublin Regulation. If you want to know more then read into it, if you don't then don't bother.

Wiki gives this:
"The Dublin Convention stipulates that asylum seekers are returned to the country where their entry into the union was first recorded and where they were first fingerprinted. Another objective of this policy is to prevent asylum seekers in orbit, i.e., to prevent the continual transfer of asylum seekers between countries trying to get others to accept them.
To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries."
 
My understanding is that the HO will 'request' RN support. The theory of this has already been considered and its not an easy outcome for the RN.

We're stretched as it is, this is additional tasking and far from traditonal supporting MACA, this potentially puts RN vessels in an awkward position. Legally I don't believe there is much an RN CO could do. Can you imagine the press when we turn around a makeshift raft, swamp one or have to take migrants onboard for safety and they claim asylum? The cynic in me thinks this is a great Whitehall play to pass the buck. If it all works beautifully HO will take the credit, the slightest problem and the RN will be the stooge.

I'd ask do the other Government departments actually do enough? Up at NMIC you've NCA, DfT, BF, MCA, Civ Police and HRMC. The RN seems to be pulling more than its share of the weight, while the rest squabble over primacy.


So, via the treaty of Sandhurst we're providing France with additional funds to police the shoreline and areas leading up to it. There's a lot more cooperation (I assume) via BF and NCA.

Dunno what dept you work in. Maybe your access will allow you to see what happened when Cameron 'surrendered' Bulwark to Frontex a few years ago- the 'rescue mission' that entailed and...the to-doings onboard that happened during that transit that were not reported in the media. Also-the SC being quite robustly reminded of social media blackout and MOD policy etc etc.

Skipper will also have obligations under maritime law to assist a 'vessel in distress'. Immediate action for these is to scuttle when they see "help".
As you know - UK warships are UK soveriegn land etc.

Dunno myself the legalities on claiming asylum on that basis are.
 
I do have other things to be getting on with other than being glued to ARRSE, so no.

However, you asked how we can legally send people back and I pointed you in the right direction - the answer is contained within the Dublin Regulation. If you want to know more then read into it, if you don't then don't bother.

Wiki gives this:
"The Dublin Convention stipulates that asylum seekers are returned to the country where their entry into the union was first recorded and where they were first fingerprinted. Another objective of this policy is to prevent asylum seekers in orbit, i.e., to prevent the continual transfer of asylum seekers between countries trying to get others to accept them.
To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries."

To quote the French, we’re not in the EU anymore, so the Dublin Convention doesn’t apply to the UK, and we have no powers to enforce or expect the French to do so.
 
More detail, please? Please?
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.
 
I’m pretty sure that none of the personnel rescued by BULW were allowed ‘tween decks. They were “accommodated” on the fo’c’sle, flight deck or in the vehicle hangar, both of which are pretty large. The pictures you can google search show that.

The only time yuo put civvies in cabins etc is when evacuating UK Entitled People in a NEO situation - at which point you cram stow them, and hope none of them get sea sick.
 
I find it quite astonishing that the French have such little apparent control of their coastine (definitely not in the way that the Germans did in 1944, for instance) that they allow unhindered departure of fee-paying passenger boats - clearly overloaded and unsuitable for offshore travel - bought complete with outboard engines and lifesaving equipment, uninsured and captained by Some Bloke with no compass. That Bloke himself should be put on trial, along with the owners of the leaky rib.

A legal case could surely be brought against them. Endangerment, negligence, failure to abide by international rules of the sea... Should be worth £30m, I think.
If I was a thrusting, ambulance-chasing, human-rights lawyer, I’d be getting round all those who’ve made the very hazardous crossing of the Dover Straits, whipping up a class-action (no win, no fee) against the French Government for permitting lives to be put in serious danger.
 
If the Border Force has neither the manpower or logistics to deal with the current crisis it's not so much them that's failed but rather they who have been failed. They have been let down by the lack of support. If the Border Force does have sufficient manpower and logistics then the RN's help is not required. My view is that this is a political failing.

Might be wrong but I doubt Blair, Brown, or any other successive PM really cared too much about migrants crossing the channel in dingys or trucks .
 
If I was a thrusting, ambulance-chasing, human-rights lawyer, I’d be getting round all those who’ve made the very hazardous crossing of the Dover Straits, whipping up a class-action (no win, no fee) against the French Government for permitting lives to be put in serious danger.

I’ll tell you exactly whats going to happen if RN vessels are deployed to blockade the channel.
A smugglers boat will be stage managed to ’capsize’ with dozens of women and kids aboard as it’s blocked in the full expectation some will drown and the watching media will crucify HMG and the Navy.
not only are people smugglers behind this, very media savvy open frontiers zealots are too.
 

endure

GCM
Skipper will also have obligations under maritime law to assist a 'vessel in distress'. Immediate action for these is to scuttle when they see "help".

SOLAS Chapter 5
" REGULATION 33 - Distress messages: Obligations and procedures

1 The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so. If the ship receiving the distress alert is unable or, in the special circumstances of the case, considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to proceed to their assistance, the master must enter in the log-book the reason for failing to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress, taking into account the recommendation of the Organization, to inform the appropriate search and rescue service accordingly. "
 
SOLAS Chapter 5
" REGULATION 33 - Distress messages: Obligations and procedures

1 The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so. If the ship receiving the distress alert is unable or, in the special circumstances of the case, considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to proceed to their assistance, the master must enter in the log-book the reason for failing to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress, taking into account the recommendation of the Organization, to inform the appropriate search and rescue service accordingly. "
Also - no member of an RN ops room team can respond to a mayday call without permission of the CO.

My understanding of that (and I could be wrong) is- if you respond-you are committed under maritime law.

Apart from the various operational freqs we'd be using- we also monitor 121.5/243 mhz. Quite often heard aircraft 'chatting' on guard... and even joined in- giving them local weather details QNH etc. Quite against rules but- eased boredom.
 
I do have other things to be getting on with other than being glued to ARRSE, so no.

However, you asked how we can legally send people back and I pointed you in the right direction - the answer is contained within the Dublin Regulation. If you want to know more then read into it, if you don't then don't bother.

Wiki gives this:
"The Dublin Convention stipulates that asylum seekers are returned to the country where their entry into the union was first recorded and where they were first fingerprinted. Another objective of this policy is to prevent asylum seekers in orbit, i.e., to prevent the continual transfer of asylum seekers between countries trying to get others to accept them.
To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries."
If you where a lawyer you'd be starving to death. You are denser than a downies forehead fitted with applique armour.
 

Tyk

LE
I read recently that we shouldn't blame the traffickers for sending the illegals across the Channel, but blame our government/s for making our welfare and benefits system too generous to illegal immigrants.

For me, if the authorities really wanted to target the trafficking gangs, follow the trail of all these new boats and life jackets the illegals seem to wear.

The primary issue is HMG hasn't strictly enforced the deportation of illegals, this has been the case since the Blair years.
There's a huge difference between genuine refugees (who're not crossing Europe) and the illegal economic migrants.

IF HMG took to deporting illegals, refusing benefits for arrivals and detaining them in offshore camps or detention ships with NO LEGAL AID. Unless they make a valid asylum claim then the message that the UK will just boot them out would spread very fast. The people traffic business model would be shot to shreds rapidly. It works for the Australians, no reason it won't work for the UK.

Dragging the RN into this mess won't help, unless they're allowed to sink the French who're escorting the migrants to mid channel. RN would have no choice other than to rescue the migrants who jump overboard from their inflatables or start the boats sinking, claiming distress is a very obvious tactic that the illegals will use.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top