Tackling the Boats.....Maybe.

[Raven]

Soooo, Starmer's got an ex cop on the job. Wonder how that's going to go.

BBC News - Ex-police chief to lead efforts to tackle small boats
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2yym0dk9zo

[klondike]

i'd lay odds that the answer to that is badly. how many years have they been fighting the drugs trade? there is just too much money involved.

imo the only way to stop our unwelcome guests is to make the place unattractive to them. we also known that that will not be happening.

i do know where we need to seek assistance...

[Alex]

I won't hold my breath

[Diasi]

The smugglings gangs can't be stopped by the UK just as the Columbian drug gangs can't be stopped by the UK.

The new Border Force supremo is no more than a highly paid posturer.

The only way is to deter the people who use the smuggling gangs & as harsh as it maybe the UK has to stop having rescue boats on standby 24/7/365.

When I read that another 8 had drowned all I thought was that's £677 X 8 per week saved for the UK taxpayers.

[dextrous63]

Wouldn't it be funny if this new fella decided to utilise the facilities in Rwanda?

[JBR]

The smugglings gangs can't be stopped by the UK just as the Columbian drug gangs can't be stopped by the UK.

The new Border Force supremo is no more than a highly paid posturer.

The only way is to deter the people who use the smuggling gangs & as harsh as it maybe the UK has to stop having rescue boats on standby 24/7/365.

When I read that another 8 had drowned all I thought was that's £677 X 8 per week saved for the UK taxpayers.

Absolutely, as is Sir Kneel.

I have stated what would be my intentions before, but just in case:

1. Turn around the boats at the mid-point of the Channel.  This would not be dangerous for the illegals, as for one thing they are usually accompanied by French naval vessels who could rescue them if in danger.  In addition, the illegals come in big numbers in good weather conditions.

2. State publicly that anyone entering our country illegally will not be supported in any way - no hotels, no generous handouts, no social services, etc, etc.

3. Whilst awaiting deportation (to anywhere that will have them), they would be kept in prison camps with the barest minimum of food.  During the war, that is exactly what happened to captured enemy soldiers in the last war.  Did anyone complain then?

[Scrumpy]

Soooo, Starmer's got an ex cop on the job. Wonder how that's going to go.

BBC News - Ex-police chief to lead efforts to tackle small boats
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2yym0dk9zo

Oh goody goody.. That's that worry sorted.. 

[dextrous63]

😬😬😬😬

[Cassandra]

Absolutely, as is Sir Kneel.

I have stated what would be my intentions before, but just in case:

1. Turn around the boats at the mid-point of the Channel.  This would not be dangerous for the illegals, as for one thing they are usually accompanied by French naval vessels who could rescue them if in danger.  In addition, the illegals come in big numbers in good weather conditions.

2. State publicly that anyone entering our country illegally will not be supported in any way - no hotels, no generous handouts, no social services, etc, etc.

3. Whilst awaiting deportation (to anywhere that will have them), they would be kept in prison camps with the barest minimum of food.  During the war, that is exactly what happened to captured enemy soldiers in the last war.  Did anyone complain then?

Impossible to achieve because of our signature to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974.

In performing the actions you suggest we would breach Chapter V - obligation to rescue. All the boat people need do is puncture the boat and signal, "SOS - we are sinking. Once landed they claim asylum.

Also there are no 'international waters' in the Channel, where our limits end, France's take over and of course vice versa.

[dextrous63]

Can't we just immediately deny asylum on the basis that France is a safe country, and thus return them there?

[Cassandra]

Can't we just immediately deny asylum on the basis that France is a safe country, and thus return them there?

We could, but under both the content of the ECHR and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol, much of which we wrote, lies the problem. The plaintiffs would claim interference to their human right to claim asylum in England, not France. Such 'non-foulement' would be easily contestable as unfair and overturned on appeal to said ECHR. Additionally, how in reality could this repatriation be physically achieved? Would the French just stand by as we forced 000's of people off boats into quaysides on French ports, or via Army landing craft to the beaches?

Also Blair over a decade, deliberately entangled many EU and ECHR clauses into and within UK Statutes, knowing that no politician would undertake the unpicking of these grievous intercedents.

[dextrous63]

I don't understand why saying "asylum status denied" is an infringement of human rights.  But then again, I've not read the law.

As for repatriation, if we have denied their staying here then we have no need to provide anything other than basic means of survival (if even that).  So we could quite happily accompany them ias they make their way in a dinghy to the boundary line and let them decide which way they want to try their luck (safe in the knowledge of what will happen if they head back to the UK).

No need to reply Cass.  I'm just having a moment of wishful thinking.  😬😬

[Cassandra]

The rejection of asylum of course, normally triggers the appeal process. Two goes in the UK and then over to Europe until the final judgement is passed.

The way we treat 'Asylum Applicants' is of course politically determined and the terms and conditions have hardly changed. Historically these have been tolerable numerically to consider. However in an over-populated world, with the clarion of the internet, numbers have now swollen to hundreds of thousands yearly. A combination of lefty moralisers, bereft of pragmatic considerations, plus a 'structured' rise in ethnic and religious organisations importing voting fodder etc has overwhelmed the UK.

[klondike]

has overwhelmed the UK.

and the rest of Europe too. Plus a different bunch in US and even Canada I believe.

It seems that those in the third world want a short cut to lands of milk and honey by moving rather than constructing. It won't take long until the whole world is one of Trump's third world shitholes if the dickhead politicians fail to extract their heads from up their nether regions PDQ.

[dextrous63]

Thank you again for your reply Cass. 

There's gotta be a solution somewhere.