More deaths in the channel.

[motorbiking]

How utterly stupid to try to cross the channel in mid winter on a boat that is little more than an inflatable carrier bag.

Fortunately they were close to the shore when they ran in to trouble. I suspect they would all have died had they been offshore. Hopefully, they will consider prosecution of those in charge of the children.

 

[Justin Passing]

I imagine they're hard to prosecute.
Name?
No comment
Country of origin?
No comment.

You said earlier about it all being men - well they once in, the family comes in with permission, innit.

I hope the story of some dying and the rest being taken back to France, gets back through the network.
How to reconcile that with a wish for humanitarian treatment of the oppressed, is a problem for which I don't have a solution. But it ain't what we have.

 

[motorbiking]

“Hey little Johnny, who told you to get in the boat?”

It seems that they launched and then people made a swim for it to get in.

That’s just nuts 0 degrees sat in a boat soaking wet for 3-4 hours.

Unless you have done regular cold water training, you would be paralysed within seconds and likely to suffer a heart attack as you try to swim.

 

[Roy Bloom]

ReganandCarter has spouted racist comments numerous times. Anyone who thinks he is concerned for the welfare of asylum seekers is either incredibly naive, lying, deluded, or just plain racist.

As I've said before, genuine, bona fide refugees include men, women, children, elderly - even cats and dogs. There's a reason why the people on these dinghies are all young men with plenty of cash to pay traffikers - because they're economic migrants who are cherry-picking which country they want to invade/fleece. Anyone who says different is either incredibly naive, lying, deluded or Himmass.

hope they took the other 66 back to france.


more people die on our roads every day - hardly gets a mention, so why should we be more fussed about this, left wing press brain washing folk again

Oh dear, how sad, never mind

Most asylum seekers do not choose UK as a destination.
The few that do choose UK to claim asylum for several potential reasons:
They speak English, they don't speak any other European language,
They have family or friends here already,
Those two things above all other issues make rebuilding a life so much easier.

They're free to choose whereever they want to claim asyslum. It's written in the UN Convention, and respected by the ECHR and ECJ.
A domestic law cannot remove that right.

 

[Roy Bloom]

How utterly stupid to try to cross the channel in mid winter on a boat that is little more than an inflatable carrier bag.

Fortunately they were close to the shore when they ran in to trouble. I suspect they would all have died had they been offshore. Hopefully, they will consider prosecution of those in charge of the children.

How utterly desparate to try to cross the channel in mid winter on a boat that is little more than an inflatable carrier bag.
Hopefully, the UK will consider making safe routes available, especially for the children.

 

[Roy Bloom]

I imagine they're hard to prosecute.
Name?
No comment
Country of origin?
No comment.

You've succumbed to the right wing media, or you're short on logic.
If an asylum seeker does not give a name or country of origin, how can they possibly claim asylum.

Border Guard: "You're under arrest."
Asylum Seeker: "I want to claim asylum."
Guard: "OK What is your name?"
Asylum seeker: No comment."
Guard: "Where are you from?"
Asylum Seeker: "No comment."
Guard: If you don't tell us your name, or where you're from, how can you expect us to check your reason for claiming asylum, Sigh"


You clearly haven't thought this through.

 

[Roy Bloom]

“Hey little Johnny, who told you to get in the boat?”

It seems that they launched and then people made a swim for it to get in.

That’s just nuts 0 degrees sat in a boat soaking wet for 3-4 hours.

Unless you have done regular cold water training, you would be paralysed within seconds and likely to suffer a heart attack as you try to swim.

An indication of their desparation, thast they'll risk their lives.
And some think that the threat of Rwanda will discourage them.

 

[motorbiking]

ReganandCarter has spouted racist comments numerous times. Anyone who thinks he is concerned for the welfare of asylum seekers is either incredibly naive, lying, deluded, or just plain racist.



Most asylum seekers do not choose UK as a destination.
The few that do choose UK to claim asylum for several potential reasons:
They speak English, they don't speak any other European language,
They have family or friends here already,
Those two things above all other issues make rebuilding a life so much easier.

They're free to choose whereever they want to claim asyslum. It's written in the UN Convention, and respected by the ECHR and ECJ.
A domestic law cannot remove that right.

You can keep saying it but it doesn’t make it fact. Nothing in the convention prevents the U.K. from declaring claims inadmissible due to illegal entry.

 

[Roy Bloom]

You can keep saying it but it doesn’t make it fact. Nothing in the convention prevents the U.K. from declaring claims inadmissible due to illegal entry.

You do like to make it sound so simple, but it's not:

This means that, if someone both claims asylum and raises a human rights claim, civil servants must make a complex series of assessments and decisions before the person can be removed as inadmissible. These decisions can be challenged by judicial review. In December 2022, the High Court quashed a number of decisions relating to people being removed to Rwanda.

Someone’s asylum claim should not be declared inadmissible until another country has agreed for the person to be removed there. Aside from Rwanda, no third country has agreed to accept asylum seekers from the UK in large numbers, and the Rwanda agreement is on hold pending further litigation.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/

So if anyone whose claim has been ruled inadmissable, lodges a legal objection, their claim is processed. So basically all claims will be processed.
Moreover, the refusal to consider an asylum claim now becomes a complex Human Rights legal issue.
Sounds like refusing to do one thing means having to do two things.
If the Rwanda scheme fails, and no other country agrees to accept them, the asylum claim has to be processed.

So ytour claim that UK has refused to process asylum claims is based on several unresolved issues and even more lengthy processes.

There's more ways to skin a cat, but thinking that it's easier to skin five instead of one is sheer madness.

 

[motorbiking]

Your link is out of date. It was published prior to the illegal immigration act.

 

[denso13]

well they once in, the family comes in with permission, innit.

No, that's wrong.

 

[denso13]

so why should we be more fussed about this, left wing press brain washing folk again

You don't have to take part, it's what the threads about.

more people die on our roads every day - hardly gets a mention

Start a thread about it.

 

[ellal]

“Hey little Johnny, who told you to get in the boat?”

Funnily enough plenty of migrants got on the titanic...

 

[Roy Bloom]

Your link is out of date. It was published prior to the illegal immigration act.

The illegal Immigration Act, which is purely a domestic law does not change the legal requirements of respecting the UN Charter, and UNHCR,

 

[motorbiking]

Last I checked the titanic was a state of the art (for the day) ocean liner. Not an inflatable carrier bag.