Full Enquiry on Channel Deaths

[Alex]

UK agrees to open full inquiry into Channel drowning deaths of 27
JUNE 1, 2022 BY LA RÉDACTION DE MEDIAPART
" The British government has announced the launching of a detailed investigation into the drowning last November of 27 people, three of whom were children, during their clandestine crossing of the Channel from France to England, following legal action by lawyers acting for several of the victims' families who suspect 'serious failings' in rescue operations. "

So was this not off the French coast where these people died ? I'm just wondering why the UK would agree to this.  Harsh perhaps, but surely if you willingly get into a dinghy to cross the channel and you die, it's your own fault, or the traffickers at least -  misadventure ? 

[Cassandra]

We have obligations under both the ECHR and The Refugee convention 1951 to practice due diligence in the way would be asylum seekers are treated. So this 'show boating', costing another small fortune is done to appease the virtue signallers.

[Alex]

aah the good old ECHR again !  Pity the French aren't taking charge of any enquiry

[Jacqueline]

They put themselves and their children in a dinghy departing from a safe country, it's tragic they drowned but as far as I am concerned it's their own fault.  If it were one of my own family I would say the same, you can't expect someone to be there 24/7 to save you from your own folly.

 

[Raven]

They put themselves and their children in a dinghy departing from a safe country, it's tragic they drowned but as far as I am concerned it's their own fault.  If it were one of my own family I would say the same, you can't expect someone to be there 24/7 to save you from your own folly.

You got that right.

[1955vintage]

Hopefully , the enquiry will blame the French.

[Cassandra]

'Actus reus' (latin 'Guilty Act) in law, is where voluntariness is presumed on the part of the offence by it's enactment. If an accused party wishes to claim an action was 'involuntary', then an excuse defence would be necessary in a criminal court. An example would be where 'possession' is a type of actus reus where you might possess something illegal that does not belong to you, but where it's very possession is in itself illegal.

Omission is another type of criminal act under actus reus this is satisfied when a person doesn't act, when that person is required under law so to do. An individual would be required to act when there is a contractual obligation to act or a duty to act, such as would be in the case of a parent and a child. The parent has a duty to act to protect the child from harm.

It may be therefore be that the inquiry into the infants death may result in the parent or carer for the child being charged. However as it will be a full on woke affair I wouldn't rely upon it.

Pritti Patel will probably be found guilty of third party manslaughter - allez oop!

[klondike]

I certainly hope that she is. Perhaps then we'll pull out of this steaming pile of piffle.

[Cassandra]

We're all Doomed, doomed I tell ya.


[automatically pruned due to age]

[Jacqueline]

You are right there Cassandra, we are.

[Michael Rolls]

and I can't see it getting any better