Immigration Crisis

No change there then, a contrarian to the end.
It could have all been put to bed with two words ' **** happens' know doubt theyll be lessons learnt.
 
Sponsored Links
People have to be accountable for their own actions.
Except for the UK Government who not only refuse to consider safe and legal routes, they prefer to waste money on unsuccessful attempts at stopping the refugees from seeking asylum,.
And when you're desperately to trying to escape to a safer life, not just for yourself, but for your family also (not forgetting the closer family ties and associated responsibility in other cultures).

The problem is you aren't interested in learning how to calculate the impact of tide, which seafarers have been doing accurately for decades.
The problem is you tend to exploit your knowledge in the hope that others won't test your claims. It doesn't take much understanding to assess that your claims and assumptions are based on your politically biased desire of the outcome rather than a dispassionate view of reality.
Otherwise there is no rational explanation for your presumptive apportioning of blame prior to the official investigations.

I'm now watching with interest as you explain how the "aberrant tidal currents" (which btw are accounted for in the tidal stream references) manage to pushed them back 7NM in a SE direction. Clueless as usual.
I have no intention of trying to understand these aberrant currents. Just being aware of them provides an explanation for the occurrence of the outcome.
But your assumption of their departure time, your calculation of their positioning when they first reported problems, and where the bodies were found, relies solely on three things: their supposed departure time, the absence of these tidal currents, and the accuracy (including your report of it) of the call about the bodies,
But you do compound these inaccuracies with incorrect wind and tide information.

The only thing I haven't accounted for is atmospheric pressure. But then these streams are based on sample data and model and can only ever be accurate to about 10-15%.
I think your usual MO is to rely on others not checking your 'calculations' or references to legal documents, and accepting your interpretation of them.
Your references to real data confirms your incorrect representation of it, when inspected, especially in this thread, wind, tide, and departure time of the refugees.
 
You feeling a bit chipper today notchy on the wind up, you knew that would get right up pats nose. And as sure as night follows day it did.

I'm fairly certain he's arguing simply for the sake of an argument at this point.:rolleyes:

No change there then, a contrarian to the end.
I've recently had posts deleted for responding to such ad hominem comments.
So it's pointless me responding to your obviously ad hominem comments with anything resembling an ad hominem reply.
:)
 
I have no intention of trying to understand these aberrant currents. Just being aware of them provides an explanation for the occurrence of the outcome.
But your assumption of their departure time, your calculation of their positioning when they first reported problems, and where the bodies were found, relies solely on three things: their supposed departure time, the absence of these tidal currents, and the accuracy (including your report of it) of the call about the bodies,
But you do compound these inaccuracies with incorrect wind and tide information.

One final time:
- We know where they were found
(approx 7-9miles off calais according to reports) lets go with an optimistic 9NM
- We know the time they were found
- We know approximately when their engine stopped working and contact was lost
"Sometime between 2:15 and 2:45am, the engine stopped working"
we know the weather and sea state
"Wind: north-easterly force 3 in darkness; low to moderate visibility; sea state slight; sea temperature 13°C."
We can (and I have) worked out the tide for each hour and can work backwards from the location they were found to the point their propulsion failed. A NE wind F3 will have little to no effect on the distance to UK waters as it pretty much blew on a transit (a line that is parallel).

The net effect would have actually moved them slightly closer to the UK. by approx. 1-2 cables. (a cable is 1/10th NM).

According to your model they were 7NM closer to the UK when the engine failed, so must have travelled 7NM SE without an engine. According to their own account/friends it was 4NM.

possible scenarios for this to be true:
1. They got the motor running and turned back to France, which is a bit odd when they would have been able to see the UK coast line (6.5NM away by your calcs) and unlikely to see much of the French coast line (13NM away) from the water (due to curvature of the earth).

2. there must have been some freaky wave not caused by the wind or tide

3. a magical sea monster transported them 4-7NM back towards France from their spot in "UK Waters".

4. They suddenly developed the ability of very good channel swimmers.

or they weren't were they hoped they were.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
One final time:
You mean one more attempt to misrepresent information, such as wind, tide, and most importantly their departure time.

- We know where they were found

- We know the time they were found
Please do remind us with your relevant sources to your information. It's an area we haven't investigated yet, to verify your presented information.

- We know approximately when their engine stopped working and contact was lost
Please do remind us of your estimation, together with your sources of information.
The report, which you provided a link to, suggested it was 01.30hrs when they were still going, for another 45 minutes, and it was never an engine failure that caused the distress.

we know the weather and sea state
We've had to discuss the wind and tide in depth to arrive at a reasonable account. But none of that take account of the aberrant tidal currents in the Channel.

According to your model they were 7NM closer to the UK when the engine failed, so must have travelled 7NM SE without an engine.
Where is the report that their engine failed?

possible scenarios for this to be true:
1. They got the motor running and turned back to France, which is a bit odd when they would have been able to see the UK coast line (6.5NM away by your calcs) and unlikely to see much of the French coast line (13NM away) from the water (due to curvature of the earth).
There was no report of their engine not running. But if they believed they were in UK waters, it would be more advantageous to keep going rather than turn back.

2. there must have been some freaky wave not caused by the wind or tide
We know that the tidal currents in the Channel are aberrant.

3. a magical sea monster transported them 4-7NM back towards France from their spot in "UK Waters".
When we've properly ascertained where they were found, we can then, and only then ascertain how much the bodies drifted.

or they weren't were they hoped they were.
If they believed they were in British waters, and in distress, and that rescue was coming form the UK, it would make sense to continue on toward their potential rescue, rather than turn back away from it.
 
Location and time found:
Report of Engine failure and time.
 
I suspect (I have no evidence) that the migrants may have reported their location in UK waters because they wanted that to be so.
Fact is once a mobile is used there is positional info around. I have no idea if this is used but it could be. A famous freedom of information action showed that it is available. I believe a phone can do this as well but have only used GPS. True though the refugees would prefer being rescued by the uk for obvious reasons but if in a panic....................

Early reports suggest nearing UK water. With an engine they could have been when the French got there. True or false - pass but feasible, Seems UK sent as ship at 1pm arriving 45min later ;) if I remember what I read correctly.

The people to blame are those who trafficked them in an unseaworthy vessel and the illegal immigrants themselves.
True but capturing the smugglers is proving to be difficult. Some have been arrested on the basis of the number of inflatables they have in storage. This is the purely EU end. Seems they were importing boats from China. Smuggling these in instead is unlikely to be difficult. All countries have crooks and dishonest people or some prepared to do things for cash. There is plenty of cash available

The refugees - if they want to apply for leave to stay it's their only way. They are well covered by the refugee charter making it hard to do much about it for any country involved.

There is another aspect as well. Something Rory pointed out regarding Afghanistan. We can not take all of them in. Correct, there are 40m of them. Same applies to other countries at both ends. Population of the country they come from and the ability of a receiving country to cope. This is why quotas get mentioned at times.

It all leaves a problem without a solution. Personally I do wonder how much western interference in other countries figures.
 
Please do remind us with your relevant sources to your information. It's an area we haven't investigated yet, to verify your presented information.
Done- ✅ I can't provide you with better sources of the tidal stream info (its subscription based), but if you have a mobile, you can download a Navionics free trial to avoid the pencil and paper method. After 14 day you need to buy a subscription to the chart. The online one doesn't provide this info.

Please do remind us of your estimation, together with your sources of information.
Done- ✅ I've given the tidal stream sources (Dover M) the direction, the strength and the reference tide.

The report, which you provided a link to, suggested it was 01.30hrs when they were still going, for another 45 minutes, and it was never an engine failure that caused the distress.
Deflation was the issue, the engine reportedly failed some 45 minutes later. if you recall in the eye witness account, they ran in to problems but the smugglers wanted to press on another 45 minutes to get to UK waters.

We've had to discuss the wind and tide in depth to arrive at a reasonable account. But none of that take account of the aberrant tidal currents in the Channel.
No you misunderstand how tidal stream charts work. The surveyors drop a measuring buoy and take tidal stream data for given tide at the reference port. Each tidal stream is provided with its location (lat and Long). My calculations uses DOVER <M> 51°4.92'N by 1°46.76'E. You could use Dover <P> or Dover <A>. You pick the nearest one to where you think you will be at the time.

Where is the report that their engine failed?
feedback from the person supposedly coordinating/tracking the crossing.

if they believed they were in UK waters, it would be more advantageous to keep going rather than turn back.
Agree so another 3NM perhaps? This makes it harder to explain why they were found in French waters.

We know that the tidal currents in the Channel are aberrant.
its something you keep saying but don't understand. Its accounted for by choosing the nearest tidal stream reference to where you think you are. In areas where the stream flow is complex, you will see a greater density, say 1-2Nm apart. In areas where they aren't maybe 50-10NM

When we've properly ascertained where they were found, we can then, and only then ascertain how much the bodies drifted.
We have its been disclosed 7-9NM off the coast of calais. Draw an arc as I did and measure the closest distance to UK waters (as I did).

If they believed they were in British waters, and in distress, and that rescue was coming form the UK, it would make sense to continue on toward their potential rescue, rather than turn back away from it.

Thats reasonable and makes it harder to explain why they were found in French waters.
 
Last edited:
Let us deal with this first.
Let us take note of your shifting position, but originally, you claimed to be 'generous'::
... They were found ... later 7 NM off calais.
Now you've changed to 7-9 nautical miles off Calais.
The official version is about 9 nautical miles.
bodies in the water about 9 nautical miles from Calais

Clearly, you were not being generous, you were intentionally being disingenuous, and you're only changing your version in the light of intensive scrutiny.
The bodies were found about 9 nautical mile from Calais after about 12 hours of them being in the water.
In addition, the report states "in the vicinity of British waters:
While fishing in the strait of Calais, in French waters but in the immediate vicinity of British waters, he discovered some fifteen bodies scattered over several hundred meters, floating on the surface of the water. Next to them: a deflated small boat that had become unusable.
The distance between France and UK at the point off Cap Gris Nez is about 18 nautical miles.
So 9 nautical miles off Cap Gris Nez will be about the dividing line.
So the bodies would only need to drift less than 1 nautical mile over 12 hours, to be in the position where they were found.

It's perfectly credible that bodies can drift in the Channel. For instance, one boat drifted about 15 miles in two days:
Matt Coker, the captain of a charter fishing boat said he spotted the small boat, which was half full of water, three miles off the Goodwin Sands in Kent.

And one person drifted entirely across the Channel:
After a seaman had floated across the Channel on a bundle of straw, ...made the crossing without the aid of artificial buoyancy. ..., he started from ... Dover and made the crossing in 21 hours and 45 minutes, ...

The preferred method of swimming the Channel is England to France. I think it's safe to assume there is a logical reason for this.
Swims usually start at or near Shakespeare's Cliff or Samphire Hoe (in between Folkestone and Dover), and aim to finish at or near Cap Gris Nez (between Boulogne and Calais). Nowadays Swims are from England to France (and back again, if you have the energy!). When the Swim has finished, your Pilot will bring you back to England.

Now about the engine:
It's sensible to assume that the engine was working right up to their final position before the boat sank.
And as above, we've determined that could have been in British waters, but after 12 hours, they then drifted less than a nautical mile back into French waters.
Le Monde is known for its opinions rather than its facts.
In recent years the paper has established a greater distinction between fact and opinion.
 
Last edited:
Done- ✅ I can't provide you with better sources of the tidal stream info (its subscription based), but if you have a mobile, you can download a Navionics free trial to avoid the pencil and paper method. After 14 day you need to buy a subscription to the chart. The online one doesn't provide this info.


Done- ✅ I've given the tidal stream sources (Dover M) the direction, the strength and the reference tide.


Deflation was the issue, the engine reportedly failed some 45 minutes later. if you recall in the eye witness account, they ran in to problems but the smugglers wanted to press on another 45 minutes to get to UK waters.


No you misunderstand how tidal stream charts work. The surveyors drop a measuring buoy and take tidal stream data for given tide at the reference port. Each tidal stream is provided with its location (lat and Long). My calculations uses DOVER <M> 51°4.92'N by 1°46.76'E. You could use Dover <P> or Dover <A>. You pick the nearest one to where you think you will be at the time.


feedback from the person supposedly coordinating/tracking the crossing.


Agree so another 3NM perhaps? This makes it harder to explain why they were found in French waters.


its something you keep saying but don't understand. Its accounted for by choosing the nearest tidal stream reference to where you think you are. In areas where the stream flow is complex, you will see a greater density, say 1-2Nm apart. In areas where they aren't maybe 50-10NM


We have its been disclosed 7-9NM off the coast of calais. Draw an arc as I did and measure the closest distance to UK waters (as I did).



Thats reasonable and makes it harder to explain why they were found in French waters.
Your constant re-positioning of your argument gives rise to sufficient cause to question your 'calculations', your suggestions that it's incredible to think that bodies can drift for less than a nautical mile in open waters, and your persistent presentation of false information.
All-in-all, your argument amounts to a prejudicial misrepresentation of the available information.
It's not surprising given your known hostility to immigration and refugees.
 
I think he has proven what he wants to prove. It may end up being the same or different to the actual investigation result.

Personally I will wait for he official investigation, but hopefully in the meantime some senior politician gets to grips with the crisis and sorts out a system

Too many lives being risked and too much money getting into crime gangs hands as political chess is being played to keep a certain section of our society angry.

Arguing on here over who is at fault or responsible is just 1 of those chess matches in action
 
Clearly, you were not being generous, you were intentionally being disingenuous, and you're only changing your version in the light of intensive scrutiny.
The bodies were found about 9 nautical mile from Calais after about 12 hours of them being in the water.
In addition, the report states "in the vicinity of British waters:

The distance between France and UK at the point off Cap Gris Nez is about 18 nautical miles.
So 9 nautical miles off Cap Gris Nez will be about the dividing line.
So the bodies would only need to drift less than 1 nautical mile over 12 hours, to be in the position where they were found.

It's perfectly credible that bodies can drift in the Channel. For instance, one boat drifted about 15 miles in two days:


And one person drifted entirely across the Channel:


The preferred method of swimming the Channel is England to France. I think it's safe to assume there is a logical reason for this.


Now about the engine:

It's sensible to assume that the engine was working right up to their final position before the boat sank.
And as above, we've determined that could have been in British waters, but after 12 hours, they then drifted less than a nautical mile back into French waters.

Le Monde is known for its opinions rather than its facts.


From the variety of sources we have:
The reports range from 9NM off calais to 7 miles off calais and between Calais and Dunkirk. A reminder that Cap Griz-Nez is nowhere near either (some 20-30nm west). I would credit the illegal immigrants with the intelligence not to leave a beach in Dunkirk, travel 20-30 miles (3-6 hours) to Cap Griz-Nez and then make a right turn for dover. This also contradicts the so called eye witness claim that they went from a beach in Dunkirk west, to the Calais Dover line.

Look at a map

Its also not reasonable to assume a dingy with 30+ passengers and a deflated starboard(?) pontoon would have managed to keep an outboard weighing 35-40kg sufficiently out of the water to avoid "drowning" it. Once the pontoon deflated and with 30 desperate passengers keen to avoid being subjected to a swim in 12-13 degree water, its a fairly certain probability the motor failed.
 
Glad somebody understands it. The argument is a vessel unable to move from around midnight 23rd to 1pm 24th, 2.7NM in to UK waters got taken back 4NM SE to French waters where the bodies were found by the tide/wind/waves.

It's not credible.
Again you're presenting incorrect information.
If they were 2.7 nautical miles into British waters, they would only need to drift that 2.7 nautical miles back into French waters to be in the position that the fishing boat reported them (about 9 nautical miles from Calais, the Channel is only 18 nautical miles wide at that point.)
But your 2.7 nautical miles into British waters is assuming a deflating boat, with the engine still working will travel, at 5 knots, that distance in the time allowed.

Let me remind you that the Channel is only 18 nautical miles wide at that point, and the bodies were reported about 9 nautical miles from Calais, and exact half way point.
So it's very credible that they were in British waters when they first encountered problems, and on sinking drifted just 1 - 2 miles back into French waters over the 12 hours until they were seen by the fishing boat.
 
They set of from Dunkirk not Griz-Nez, so the shortest crossing point is irrelevant. From calais the best course to UK water (just under 9NM) is a Course of 300°T. Unfortunately that would take them well of course.

So it's very credible that they were in British waters when they first encountered problems, and on sinking drifted just 1 - 2 miles back into French waters over the 12 hours until they were seen by the fishing boat.
Ok show me your EP when they sunk accounting for the known tide.

Nobody claims to have drifted from dover to calias - in fact the claim was he swam. and the other scenario you claim - I couldn't find any reference to drift 15NM nor the direction of drift. But of course in other parts of the channel the tidal stream is much stronger.
Captain Matthew Webb (19 January 1848 – 24 July 1883) was an English swimmer and stuntman. He is the first recorded person to swim the English Channel for sport without the use of artificial aids. In 1875, Webb swam from Dover to Calais in less than 22 hours.
 
From the variety of sources we have:
The reports range from 9NM off calais to 7 miles off calais and between Calais and Dunkirk. A reminder that Cap Griz-Nez is nowhere near either (some 20-30nm west). I would credit the illegal immigrants with the intelligence not to leave a beach in Dunkirk, travel 20-30 miles (3-6 hours) to Cap Griz-Nez and then make a right turn for dover. This also contradicts the so called eye witness claim that they went from a beach in Dunkirk west, to the Calais Dover line.

Look at a map

Its also not reasonable to assume a dingy with 30+ passengers and a deflated starboard(?) pontoon would have managed to keep an outboard weighing 35-40kg sufficiently out of the water to avoid "drowning" it. Once the pontoon deflated and with 30 desperate passengers keen to avoid being subjected to a swim in 12-13 degree water, its a fairly certain probability the motor failed.
The position that the dingy sank is reported by Sky News to be approximately between Gravelines and Dover. A distance about 28 nautical miles.
1669649283829.png



Bu they were much closer to the shortest distance between Calais and Dover, which is just 22 nautical miles. And it's that Channel dividing line, not the actual course sailed, that is the most important piece of information. (The black dot just illustrates the mid point, not the position of the sinking.)
The red circle on the diagram shows the approximate position of the sinking. Very close to the actual dividing line between France and England. But that sinking position can only be determined by the position of the bodies. It's perfectly feasible that a) the Channel was just 10 - 11 nautical miles to the dividing line and that the bodies could have drifted 1 to 2 nautical miles back into France.

1669649167406.png


Your constant quoting of tide, etc is irrelevant because a) you've already tried to mislead us once on tide and wind, b) because the Channel is subject to near unpredictable tidal currents, and c) you've already suggested that the tide would not have had a great effect.
Either it would or it wouldn't. To persistently try to argue your point now that it is so important, highlights the fallibility of your arguments.

But as others have said, let's await the result of the official investigation instead of trying to pre-empt that conclusion. Because your attempts to persuade others of your 'calculations' suggests more about your prejudicial position than the veracity of your arguments.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top