27 people confirmed to have died after boat sinks in the channel

[Worksop Palace]

Originally Posted by Wolfnipplechips

That’s not clear by your post at all.

I’m not going to get drawn into another Worksop clarifying his posts scenario.

This is a humanitarian crisis and we as a nation need to grow some bollocks and take some responsibility for once. Anybody blaming the French simply doesn’t get it.

As per usual, you’re just taking what you want to from my posts, to suit your silly agenda. I’ve made it clear we need to do something about this to ensure this scenario doesn’t happen again. I’ve suggested using Calais as our location to start our asylum process. I’m really not sure how you’ve missed that. But turning a blind eye and ignoring the people smuggling is naive at best, negligent at worst.

I think my opinion is pretty clear. Suggest we leave it there.

[brighton_eagle]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

No but the 1951 UN convention on the status of refugees looks at the issues of where someone should claim asylum.

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on
account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees,
who, coming directly from a territory where their life or
freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization,
provided they present themselves without delay to the
authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or
presence

So the question is whether their lives or freedom are threatened in France from where they are coming.

In the debates around it, it was the French who argued:

‘The fact that was causing him concern was that there
were large numbers of refugees living in countries
bordering on France. If they crossed the French frontier
without their lives being in danger, the French
Government would be entitled to impose penalties and to
send them back to the frontier.’

So it is illegal to enter the UK for the purpose of Asylum from France.

That's not to say we should not be fully engaged in finding solutions to the problems.

Nothing that you have posted states that it is illegal to enter the UK from France for the purpose of asylum.

[Hpalace]

Originally Posted by brighton_eagle

Nothing that you have posted states that it is illegal to enter the UK from France for the purpose of asylum.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[mushroom]

We’ve always done immigration on the cheap in this country. Put poor people in poor areas and watch them fight over scant resources. You then get a middle class homeowners telling people on a council house waiting list he/she is racist for not wanting 1000s of immigrants.

Immigration done right, costs money (in the short term). We need more social housing/schools/hospitals… we need to accept we probably have to pay a bit more tax… we also need to accept that those at the bottom of the pile (who have already been shit on) can be negatively impacted by immigration and spread the burden more evenly.

In my opinion… if we looked after the poor in this country better… brexit wouldn’t have happened.

[brighton_eagle]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

No but the 1951 UN convention on the status of refugees looks at the issues of where someone should claim asylum.

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on
account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees,
who, coming directly from a territory where their life or
freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization,
provided they present themselves without delay to the
authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or
presence

So the question is whether their lives or freedom are threatened in France from where they are coming.

In the debates around it, it was the French who argued:

‘The fact that was causing him concern was that there
were large numbers of refugees living in countries
bordering on France. If they crossed the French frontier
without their lives being in danger, the French
Government would be entitled to impose penalties and to
send them back to the frontier.’

So it is illegal to enter the UK for the purpose of Asylum from France.

That's not to say we should not be fully engaged in finding solutions to the problems.

You should probably also read these findings by a UK judge in 1999

To view the link you have to Register or Login

specifically here:

(a) “Coming directly ”
17. The respondents accept that a literal construction of “directly” would contravene the clear purpose of the Article and they accordingly accept that this condition can be satisfied even if the refugee passes through intermediate countries on his way to the United Kingdom. But that is only so, they argue, provided that he could not reasonably have been expected to seek protection in any such intermediate country and this will not be the case unless he has actually needed, rather than merely desired, to come to the United Kingdom. In short it is the respondents’ contention that Article 31 allows the refugee no element of choice as to where he should claim asylum. He must claim it where first he may: only considerations of continuing safety would justify impunity for further travel.


18. For my part I would reject this argument. Rather I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s executive committee (ExCom), and the writings of well respected academics and commentators (most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway and Dr Paul Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum. I conclude that any merely short term stopover en route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the Article, and that the main touchstones by which exclusion from protection should be judged are the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reasons for delaying there (even a substantial delay in an unsafe third country would be reasonable were the time spent trying to acquire the means of travelling on), and whether or not the refugee sought or found there protection de jure or de facto from the persecution they were fleeing.


19. It is worth quoting in this regard the UNHCR‘s own Guidelines with regard to the Detention of Asylum Seekers:

"The expression ‘coming directly’ in Article 31(1) covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept ‘coming directly’ and each case must be judged on its merits."

[Lazarus]

Has anyone else seen this film by Ai Weiwei? To view the link you have to Register or Login

It is heartbreaking, and should be compulsory viewing for the politicians responsible for this tragedy.

[Herr Colonpharter]

Originally Posted by Hpalace

How are the French meant to stop people getting on a boat? People have been getting on boats for thousands of years and its perfectly legal to do so.

So why did they accept the £55m?

[Hpalace]

Originally Posted by Herr Colonpharter

So why did they accept the £55m?

To help pay for attempting to stop the illegal activity of people smuggling?

[Herr Colonpharter]

Originally Posted by Hpalace

To help pay for attempting to stop the illegal activity of people smuggling?

. . . which doesn't extend to stopping people getting on a boat?

[brighton_eagle]

Originally Posted by Herr Colonpharter

. . . which doesn't extend to stopping people getting on a boat?

From their figures, it would appear the French stop lots of people from getting on boats. Not 100% though, which seems unlikely to ever be possible.

[Maidstoned Eagle]

Shit like this makes me want to resign from the human race

[Hpalace]

Originally Posted by Herr Colonpharter

. . . which doesn't extend to stopping people getting on a boat?

Put it this way. If you pop down to Poole harbor and attempt to board a boat you will not have committed a crime. You will be doing an everyday legal activity. If however you organise and take payment for putting a group of people on a boat with the intention of smuggling them across a nations border you will have committed a crime.

It’s not illegal to board a boat. It’s also not illegal in international law for an asylum seeker to enter the uk. It’s illegal to smuggle people.

[brighton_eagle]

Originally Posted by Maidstoned Eagle

Shit like this makes me want to resign from the human race

The RNLI get a massive load of abuse for saving lives. I've even seen people complaining that 'this isn't what they are paid for'. Stupid ***** don't even realise they are volunteers.

[Herr Colonpharter]

Originally Posted by Hpalace

Put it this way. If you pop down to Poole harbor and attempt to board a boat you will not have committed a crime. You will be doing an everyday legal activity. If however you organise and take payment for putting a group of people on a boat with the intention of smuggling them across a nations border you will have committed a crime.

It’s not illegal to board a boat. It’s also not illegal in international law for an asylum seeker to enter the uk. It’s illegal to smuggle people.

. . but are any smugglers getting nicked and what becomes of them if they are? They must be there or thereabouts when a boat is launched?

[Wolfnipplechips]

Originally Posted by Herr Colonpharter

. . but are any smugglers getting nicked and what becomes of them if they are? They must be there or thereabouts when a boat is launched?

Why do people obsess about the smugglers?

They are only there because governments have utterly failed in their responsibility to humanity.

They are a complete side issue. If one smuggler gets nicked another will pop up.

It’s a systemic issue that can only be solved by government.

[GreatGonzo]

Originally Posted by Wolfnipplechips

Why do people obsess about the smugglers?

They are only there because governments have utterly failed in their responsibility to humanity.

They are a complete side issue. If one smuggler gets nicked another will pop up.

It’s a systemic issue that can only be solved by government.

I did like the suggestion of sticking a UK immigration centre in Calais and then those who want to identify themselves to UK authorities can do so and their case be reviewed.

[Wolfnipplechips]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

I did like the suggestion of sticking a UK immigration centre in Calais and then those who want to identify themselves to UK authorities can do so and their case be reviewed.

Or we could be really grown up and welcoming and have one in …. The U.K.

I think I’m correct in saying that France already accepts more than four times as many asylum seekers as we do.

How is that fair? Is this your post Brexit vision for global Britain? Are we pulling our weight? I’m not surprised the French think we’re taking the piss.

How is it their responsibility to police every km of their vast coastline to ensure that nobody gets in a boat over to the U.K. who have explicitly told the rest of Europe that we want to be responsible for our own borders?

[Golf Boy]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

I did like the suggestion of sticking a UK immigration centre in Calais and then those who want to identify themselves to UK authorities can do so and their case be reviewed.

Why would France, or the EU want that?

[Adlerhorst]

Originally Posted by Golf Boy

Why would France, or the EU want that?

So fewer people drown? This is already done on other EU borders (to stop people drowning) so it’s entirely reasonable that they would accept it here.

There is a need for people to get away from crap where they live. They don’t give a crap about where the policitical borders are. Western Europe is Western Europe and that’s where people are coming to. It seems entirely logical that Western European countries work together to have a common asylum position and an agreement on how people who meet those criteria are allocated between Western European countries. That’s going to mean common areas in Western Europe where applications are processed before you get to having to cross major shipping channels. But it does mean people need to stop worrying about U.K. and EU and individual member states within the EU.

[spiny norman]

Fair assessment Mushroom