Priti Patel the new Home Sec wants to hang crims, lots of them.

endure

GCM
Response copied over from "Migration" thread . . .

BBC "PM" prog saying French waters, and that "at least 27" . . . now "with the fishies".

. . . so, not UK or RNLI responsibility, although our RNLI not wasting the opportunity, to "wade-in" and operate in French waters.
A distress at sea is the responsibility of all those who are able to offer assistance.
 
Response copied over from "Migration" thread . . .

BBC "PM" prog saying French waters, and that "at least 27" . . . now "with the fishies".

. . . so, not UK or RNLI responsibility, although our RNLI not wasting the opportunity, to "wade-in" and operate in French waters.

Reported that at least twenty other inflatables DID make the the transit across the Channel, and still setting course, even in the dark.

I do hope that all the mealy-mouthed, risk-averse, "professionals" - who constantly berate those of us who advocate robust policies to prevent and deter illegal economic migrants - will now accept THEIR responsibilities for failing to consider anything to deter the migrants launching the inflatables. These deaths are on YOU !!

It didn't take "push-back" to result in deaths. Babies weren't chucked overboard. It didn't take any other robust actions to result in drownings. The daft buggers, are quite capable of achieving that on their own.
Do you feel better celebrating their deaths?
 
Government is living in fear of doing anything because whatever they do the next day appears in the media as "Priti Patel opens concentration camps" or " migrants fleeing to safety rounded up and put in cages" or " this is nazi Germany all over again ".

They care more about PR than anything else.
 
A distress at sea is the responsibility of all those who are able to offer assistance.

A bit of selective editing of my post @endure . . . .

A great pity that there were not sufficient measures in place to deter them from putting to sea !!

. . . I do hope that all the mealy-mouthed, risk-averse, "professionals" - who constantly berate those of us who advocate robust policies to prevent and deter illegal economic migrants - will now accept THEIR responsibilities for failing to consider anything to deter the migrants launching the inflatables. These deaths are on YOU !!

It didn't take "push-back" to result in deaths. Babies weren't chucked overboard. It didn't take any other robust actions to result in drownings. The daft buggers, are quite capable of achieving that on their own.
 
The French Navy have their blood on their hands for allowing them to set off from their coast. I hope some admiral is having an interview sans cafe et croissants.
 

endure

GCM
Meanwhile, 40 to 50 merchant ships were tooling along at 14 knots, all the bridge lookouts were at dinner, and rubber dinghies with 2" of freeboard don't show on radar.
Border Force cutters and RNLI lifeboats are much more suitable to hauling people out of the sea as they have much lower freeboards and, in the case of the RNLI, are specifically built for rescue..
 

endure

GCM
A bit of selective editing of my post @endure . . . .

A great pity that there were not sufficient measures in place to deter them from putting to sea !!
Not selective editing at all. Just a statement of the law as it stands.

Just in case anyone didn't catch it the previous times I've posted it.

"The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving information 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.

This obligation to provide assistance applies regardless of the nationality or status of such persons or the circumstances in which they are found.

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."
 
Not selective editing at all. Just a statement of the law as it stands.

Just in case anyone didn't catch it the previous times I've posted it.

"The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving information 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.

This obligation to provide assistance applies regardless of the nationality or status of such persons or the circumstances in which they are found.

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."
As pointed out previously, the saving of people in peril on the sea also extends to shipwrecked enemy combatants and this was established under conventions of 1907 and 1949, although customary practice had been established long before Nelson's time.
 
The French Navy have their blood on their hands for allowing them to set off from their coast. I hope some admiral is having an interview sans cafe et croissants.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the MN. The responsible authority will be the Gendarmerie or the French equivalent of the MCA. Ask yourself this - if the situation was reversed, how well do you think the Kent constabulary would do over any sustained period of time. On what charge would a bunch of migrants with a boat be detained? For how long? It's not easy and the French have more robust powers than your typical British Bobby.
 
A distress at sea is the responsibility of all those who are able to offer assistance.
Not selective editing at all. Just a statement of the law as it stands.

Just in case anyone didn't catch it the previous times I've posted it.

"The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving information 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.

This obligation to provide assistance applies regardless of the nationality or status of such persons or the circumstances in which they are found.

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."

And we're off again.

You're Google 'knowledge' of SOLAS is up there with the anti-vaxxers and Cv19.

At which point does you're hypothetical rubber boat full to the gunwales become a 'vessel in distress'?

Some might suggest that is in distress the second it parts company from the French shore and heads West. It is patently ill-equipped to undertake the passage, is grossly overloaded and has no form of communication or other means of signalling.

The boat skipper/captain/responsible person of any vessel, no matter it's size is required by your beloved SOLAS and ISM.

Under the SOLAS, boat owners of seagoing vessels, including inland waterways, are required by law to ensure that all crew and passengers onboard are aware of safety management procedures, drafted under the provisions of the International Safety Management (ISM) code.

SOLAS holds vessel owners liable for civil litigation in the event of personal injury, wrongful death and other claims for financial damages if the captain fails to meet his or her legal responsibility. This covers charter tour boats and privately-held yachts, as well as cruise liners.

Injured parties may certainly have the right to sue for damages against the boat owner under international maritime law, but may also be able to “pierce the corporate veil” and sue the captain and individual crew members for failing to meet their responsibilities under SOLAS, as well.

If it can be demonstrated through evidence that the captain failed to meet the legal responsibility to put passenger safety above his or her own safety, civil damages may be possible for negligence.


A small extract for you to mull over. There are also many Marine Guidance Notes (MGNs) as published by the MCA which detail the skipper's duty of care. UNCLOS also details (and, in many cases, repeats all of the aforementioned).

All of the above is mirrored in law by individual nations.

Ignorance is not an accepted defence.

Any of the RYA sponsored boating courses* available to UK citizens, from RYA Level 2 Powerboat Handling up to the Commercial Charter skipper courses are obliged to be instructed in the major points noted above.

Back to the hypothetical rubber boat: yes, I'm aware that the 'skipper' in this case is a nominal position (given that they are all Doctors and Engineers) - it's going to be the bloke with his hand on the outboard throttle. It will be the first time that he's ever used the thing and knows only to head West.

No matter: as he and his pax are proceeding along, with a functioning method of propulsion and no casualties and the boat hull is intact, other than being an idiot the vessel is not in distress.

And even if he does have access to a radio, his first call should be a PAN PAN, making other craft aware that he has situation that is classed as 'Urgent' - not 'Urgent' and not an emergency. That is the reason why we still use MAYDAY.

And guess what? it is an offence under SOLAS and individual national laws to broadcast a false MAYDAY just 'cos you're cold and tired and your hand aches from gripping the tiller.




*yes, I'm a qualified Day Skipper (Motor).
 
You appear to be confusing the responsibility of the owner or master of the rubber boat and any associated civil liability, with the responsibility of mariners to provide assistance to people in distress.

They're not the same thing. The RYA doesn't teach you that.
 
And we're off again.

You're Google 'knowledge' of SOLAS is up there with the anti-vaxxers and Cv19.

At which point does you're hypothetical rubber boat full to the gunwales become a 'vessel in distress'?

Some might suggest that is in distress the second it parts company from the French shore and heads West. It is patently ill-equipped to undertake the passage, is grossly overloaded and has no form of communication or other means of signalling.

The boat skipper/captain/responsible person of any vessel, no matter it's size is required by your beloved SOLAS and ISM.

Under the SOLAS, boat owners of seagoing vessels, including inland waterways, are required by law to ensure that all crew and passengers onboard are aware of safety management procedures, drafted under the provisions of the International Safety Management (ISM) code.

SOLAS holds vessel owners liable for civil litigation in the event of personal injury, wrongful death and other claims for financial damages if the captain fails to meet his or her legal responsibility. This covers charter tour boats and privately-held yachts, as well as cruise liners.

Injured parties may certainly have the right to sue for damages against the boat owner under international maritime law, but may also be able to “pierce the corporate veil” and sue the captain and individual crew members for failing to meet their responsibilities under SOLAS, as well.

If it can be demonstrated through evidence that the captain failed to meet the legal responsibility to put passenger safety above his or her own safety, civil damages may be possible for negligence.


A small extract for you to mull over. There are also many Marine Guidance Notes (MGNs) as published by the MCA which detail the skipper's duty of care. UNCLOS also details (and, in many cases, repeats all of the aforementioned).

All of the above is mirrored in law by individual nations.

Ignorance is not an accepted defence.

Any of the RYA sponsored boating courses* available to UK citizens, from RYA Level 2 Powerboat Handling up to the Commercial Charter skipper courses are obliged to be instructed in the major points noted above.

Back to the hypothetical rubber boat: yes, I'm aware that the 'skipper' in this case is a nominal position (given that they are all Doctors and Engineers) - it's going to be the bloke with his hand on the outboard throttle. It will be the first time that he's ever used the thing and knows only to head West.

No matter: as he and his pax are proceeding along, with a functioning method of propulsion and no casualties and the boat hull is intact, other than being an idiot the vessel is not in distress.

And even if he does have access to a radio, his first call should be a PAN PAN, making other craft aware that he has situation that is classed as 'Urgent' - not 'Urgent' and not an emergency. That is the reason why we still use MAYDAY.

And guess what? it is an offence under SOLAS and individual national laws to broadcast a false MAYDAY just 'cos you're cold and tired and your hand aches from gripping the tiller.




*yes, I'm a qualified Day Skipper (Motor).
EXCELLENT !!

Thank you . . . although, I suspect your informative and very comprehensive reply will NOT be sufficient to prevent the incescent prattling from @endure and the risk-averse, fellow travellers, who have done nothing, suggested nothing, that would deter crossing the Channel and affectively prevent today's drownings.
 
You appear to be confusing the responsibility of the owner or master of the rubber boat and any associated civil liability, with the responsibility of mariners to provide assistance to people in distress.

They're not the same thing. The RYA doesn't teach you that.
You seem to be confusing @FourZeroCharlie's patient explanation, that any craft, not sinking, not in danger, does not justify the application of SOLAS requirements.
 
You seem to be confusing @FourZeroCharlie's patient explanation, that any craft, not sinking, not in danger, does not justify the application of SOLAS requirements.
And you are wilfully ignoring what has patiently been explained to you before, that the SOLAS trigger is not the existence of the craft, but the reaction of its occupants on being intercepted. Which is also why the normal merchant traffic tends to pass it by.

Put your money where your mouth is. Buy or rent a boat and go and intercept these migrant boats. Turn them back yourself. Enter French waters to do so. Watch what happens and accept the inevitable consequences.

Go and test the law. I dare you.
 

Latest Threads

Top