Small boat crossings

[Alteredbhoy]

7 minutes ago, ruby said:

We really have been scraping the barrel. Sadly children getting killed by motorists happens, as do children drowning in lakes etc. Last I heard our roads are one of the safest in the world. Now one thing that does concern me is children getting hit by EVs. Nobody reports on it because well we don't want to stop people buying EVs. If you look at the most common SUV the front is not designed to push the pedestrian onto the bonnet, plus they weigh a ton. I don't have any data and I doubt I would get it but given their weigh I suspect being hit by an EV at 20 MPH is far more lethal than being hit by a Fiesta or similar small car at 30 MPH. As to the protestor at the Conference she went in there to disrupt, she deserved what she got, perhaps like the guy that stood on the top of a tube train in Ilford and got pulled off unceremoniously. What do you think they would have done to her in Russia? They know what they are getting into.   

So in your view "one is too many" only applies to boat crossings and not to the death of children or assaults upon women. In fact you actively seem to support the violence meted out to the protestor at the Reform Conference.

What sort of scum opposes violence against women, but only when it is carried out by a foreigner?

[ruby]

1 minute ago, Alteredbhoy said:

So in your view "one is too many" only applies to boat crossings and not to the death of children or assaults upon women. In fact you actively seem to support the violence meted out to the protestor at the Reform Conference.

What sort of scum opposes violence against women, but only when it is carried out by a foreigner?

What are you on about? I didn't mention any of that but obviously it must be high on your list. As far as the Reform Conference goes, I gather several of the attendees got missiles fired at them by the protestors. I suppose that is ok though as long as you don't touch one of them. When are you going to grow up?

[Alteredbhoy]

7 minutes ago, ruby said:

What are you on about? I didn't mention any of that but obviously it must be high on your list. As far as the Reform Conference goes, I gather several of the attendees got missiles fired at them by the protestors. I suppose that is ok though as long as you don't touch one of them. When are you going to grow up?

Oh look ruby making stuff up again to justify his argument. Or did you read it on a "Patriot" insta?

[Jessica In Heels]

This shows just how difficult this problem will be to crack.  The boat that was brought ashore at Portsmouth undertook a journey of roughly 75 miles…. 3 times the distance of those crossing at Dover.  But ad in the wind and tides and you can potentially double that distance.

The French position that it was too dangerous to intervene is getting old.  How do they let 140 migrants with no training, no meaningful competent person in charge and likely swimming pool grade floatation kit…allowing that boat to leave and then proceed across the worlds busiest shipping lanes is a nonsense.    The French need to held to account otherwise the entire coast line will be seen as fair game for these crossings now.

Edited September 7 by Jessica In Heels

[Alteredbhoy]

13 minutes ago, Jessica In Heels said:

This shows just how difficult this problem will be to crack.  The boat that was brought ashore at Portsmouth undertook a journey of roughly 75 miles…. 3 times the distance of those crossing at Dover.  But ad in the wind and tides and you can potentially double that distance.

The French position that it was too dangerous to intervene is getting old.  How do they let 140 migrants with no training, no meaningful competent person in charge and likely swimming pool grade floatation kit…allowing that boat to leave and then proceed across the worlds busiest shipping lanes is a nonsense.    The French need to held to account otherwise the entire coast line will be seen as fair game for these crossings now.

I think the problem with intervention is two fold. Firstly, if the boat is already at sea, then how do the French intervene with a boat with (say) 12 French border officials on it and 140 migrants in a dinghy that do not want to be intercepted? The risk of violence, confrontation and many migrants ending up in the sea, is significantly greater than if they intercept a dinghy with half a dozen migrants on board. And secondly, this vessel left from so far away from the normal channels, were the French even aware before it had left.

The risk is that many more migrants will try crossing from further and further away to avoid detection by the French authorities. The crossings will become even more dangerous and the risk of loss of life even greater.

[Jessica In Heels]

2 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I think the problem with intervention is two fold. Firstly, if the boat is already at sea, then how do the French intervene with a boat with (say) 12 French border officials on it and 140 migrants in a dinghy that do not want to be intercepted? The risk of violence, confrontation and many migrants ending up in the sea, is significantly greater than if they intercept a dinghy with half a dozen migrants on board. And secondly, this vessel left from so far away from the normal channels, were the French even aware before it had left.

The risk is that many more migrants will try crossing from further and further away to avoid detection by the French authorities. The crossings will become even more dangerous and the risk of loss of life even greater.

Yes I agree…intervention on the water will always be a challenge.  The French coast guard are reported to have monitored it for 12 hours …it’s entirely journey.  If they had a window to interdict …they let it pass.

[Alteredbhoy]

1 minute ago, Jessica In Heels said:

Yes I agree…intervention on the water will always be a challenge.  The French coast guard are reported to have monitored it for 12 hours …it’s entirely journey.  If they had a window to interdict …they let it pass.

The figures released by the UK and French Governments indicate that the French are stopping about 70% of boats from leaving. But the average occupancy of those they prevent is about 25, while the average occupancy the much smaller number that they do not prevent is about 75.

There appears to be a risk assessment that the risk in stopping a large boat with many occupants is too great once it has embarked. While the risk of stopping boats with fewer occupants is acceptable.

 

[Jessica In Heels]

2 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

The figures released by the UK and French Governments indicate that the French are stopping about 70% of boats from leaving. But the average occupancy of those they prevent is about 25, while the average occupancy the much smaller number that they do not prevent is about 75.

There appears to be a risk assessment that the risk in stopping a large boat with many occupants is too great once it has embarked. While the risk of stopping boats with fewer occupants is acceptable.

 

 I don’t dispute the stopped boat figures…but they are only half of the story.  Every migrant stopped / removed from a boat is back in the camps by tea time and back among the dunes to try try and try again the following day.  Every stopped boat is simply a pause…or an occupational hazard.  The French are neither  detaining nor deporting anyone they stop in these boats ….and they have all come too far to simply shrug and go home now.  The entire concept of small boats meeds to be made unworkable for any plan to be meaningful.

Yesterday’s long distance crossing is the latest evolution in the tactics by the smugglers.  Nor will it be the last.

[Alteredbhoy]

20 minutes ago, Jessica In Heels said:

 I don’t dispute the stopped boat figures…but they are only half of the story.  Every migrant stopped / removed from a boat is back in the camps by tea time and back among the dunes to try try and try again the following day.  Every stopped boat is simply a pause…or an occupational hazard.  The French are neither  detaining nor deporting anyone they stop in these boats ….and they have all come too far to simply shrug and go home now.  The entire concept of small boats meeds to be made unworkable for any plan to be meaningful.

Yesterday’s long distance crossing is the latest evolution in the tactics by the smugglers.  Nor will it be the last.

Yeah, it's a bit like a goalkeeper stopping twelve shots but not being able to stop the striker scoring on the twelfth shot.

But the number of successful crossings is significantly down this year and the size of the reduction is increasing.

That criminals will continue to seek to find ways around the rules and avoid enforcement actions is almost a guarantee. Just look at Reform finding ways to obtain illegal donations from foreigners.

[Alteredbhoy]

3 hours ago, ruby said:

It shows how out of touch the BBC are. On their lunchtime news they said that the protesters are protesting as they don't believe the figures. They are completely wrong, most of the protestors thing that just one is too many. So sure it has dropped by 45% it doesn't matter it is still too many. Every one of them will be be a drain on our sparse public services even if if we do eventually get rid of them. It appears we don't anyway.

Strange that you didn't mention the police officers injured by your black shirted protestor friends. Is one injured Police Officer not one too many?

[ruby]

26 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Strange that you didn't mention the police officers injured by your black shirted protestor friends. Is one injured Police Officer not one too many?

I heard they were laying into the protesters. They are the same force that are being investigated over Henry Novak, so I wouldn't believe a word they say. 

[Alteredbhoy]

1 hour ago, ruby said:

I heard they were laying into the protesters. They are the same force that are being investigated over Henry Novak, so I wouldn't believe a word they say. 

Oh dear. You "Patriot" friends claim they are the victims and you believe them.

You have a very lax view of reality.

You clearly believe, in fact you've pretty much stated it here, that you do condone violence against the Police.

Edited September 7 by Alteredbhoy

[ruby]

3 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Oh dear. You "Patriot" friends claim they are the victims and you believe them.

You have a very lax view of reality.

You clearly believe, in fact you've pretty much stated it here, that you do condone violence against the Police.

Actually it has been proved over and over again that is not the case, sadly for the Police these days there are too many cameras around. I remember their tricks during the miners strike. No I do no condone violence against the Police and other than Palestinian marches I gather there isn't any. I still remember seeing that West Midlands Officer beating up a guy that had been beaten up by 2 coloured guys. Sadly for her someone was there to film it all. Even then they tried to prosecute the guy she had beaten up.

[Alteredbhoy]

6 minutes ago, ruby said:

Actually it has been proved over and over again that is not the case, sadly for the Police these days there are too many cameras around. I remember their tricks during the miners strike. No I do no condone violence against the Police and other than Palestinian marches I gather there isn't any. I still remember seeing that West Midlands Officer beating up a guy that had been beaten up by 2 coloured guys. Sadly for her someone was there to film it all. Even then they tried to prosecute the guy she had beaten up.

A post pretty much saying that the Police were "asking for it".

The behaviour of police officers in the miners' strike over 40 years ago is irrelevant to today's policing.  Yet you raise it to defend those committing violence against officers last night.

And you should read the following article about we shouldn't refer to people from ethnic minorities as being "coloured".

https://watershed.co.uk/archive-sites/rifemagazine/2015/01/cant-say-coloured-questions-race-answered/index.html

 

[Alteredbhoy]

13 minutes ago, ruby said:

No I do no condone violence against the Police and other than Palestinian marches I gather there isn't any. 

361 Police Officers were injured in the protests sparked by the Southport murders.

37 Met Police Officers injured policing the Unite the Kingdom marches

11 Police Officers injured in Nigel Farage's "cold rage" protests in Southampton.

Eight police officers injured in demonstrations outside a hotel in Epping housing asylum seekers

You either know nothing, or you are dishonest.

[Alteredbhoy]

2 hours ago, Lynn and John said:

Unlike you we don't make things up

‘At Best 1 Per Cent Of Asylum Claims Are Genuine’ - Home Office Whistleblower Tells The Times

 

Repeating an unsubstantiated accusations is not the same as telling the truth.

The man who pretended to be dead for three years to avoid people being aware of his incarceration is hardly in a position to make accusations of the truthfulness of others.

[ruby]

31 minutes ago, Lynn and John said:

Moving on. We've decided to cancel our monthly direct debit to the RNLI.  We can no longer support a charity that is providing a taxi service for illegal migrants crossing the English Channel. 

Yes, I pay mine annually but I am seriously wondering whether to renew it. It is a shame as it is not the guys that man the lifeboats fault. They must be pretty fed up as well, they are volunteers that have normal jobs they interrupt to pick up those ILLEGAL migrants.

[c_cubed51]

44 minutes ago, Lynn and John said:

Moving on. We've decided to cancel our monthly direct debit to the RNLI.  We can no longer support a charity that is providing a taxi service for illegal migrants crossing the English Channel. 

I don't know if you donors are aware that the RNLI's mission is to save lives at sea around the coasts of the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is a charity which does not discriminate when it comes to saving lives, the way you appear to!

You are bigoted and petty, as well as an apparent layabout who can afford to spend his day watching TV.

15 minutes ago, ruby said:

Yes, I pay mine annually but I am seriously wondering whether to renew it. It is a shame as it is not the guys that man the lifeboats fault. They must be pretty fed up as well, they are volunteers that have normal jobs they interrupt to pick up those ILLEGAL migrants.

I'm certain that those who risk their lives as members of the RNLI to save lives at sea don't care if the persons they rescue are legally or illegally in the waters of the UK. You are as bigoted and petty as that bloke above.

[ruby]

3 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

I don't know if you donors are aware that the RNLI's mission is to save lives at sea around the coasts of the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is a charity which does not discriminate when it comes to saving lives, the way you appear to!

You are bigoted and petty, as well as an apparent layabout who can afford to spend his day watching TV.

I'm certain that those who risk their lives as members of the RNLI to save lives at sea don't care if the persons they rescue are legally or illegally in the waters of the UK. You are as bigoted and petty as that bloke above.

The whole idea of the RNLI is to save people that get into difficulties at sea. I used to know a weekend sailor and he used to say that if you didn't have the right equipment and half the reason you needed them was because of it, you got an enormous telling off. It is like in the mountains of the UK, the Mountain Rescue will give you a telling off for the same reasons. So in the case of migrants they go to sea in a boat that can't make the trip, so they are using a resource that may be needed by a yachtsman or even a child that has got into difficulty through no fault of their own. So it is not being bigotry but pure common sense, but of course you wouldn't understand that would you.  

[c_cubed51]

23 minutes ago, ruby said:

The whole idea of the RNLI is to save people that get into difficulties at sea. I used to know a weekend sailor and he used to say that if you didn't have the right equipment and half the reason you needed them was because of it, you got an enormous telling off. 

At the time of saving the individuals, the RNLI doesn't ask questions about the preparedness or nautical prowess of those at risk of dying at sea.

Your anecdote is pointless.

You remain a petty-minded bigot.

Edited September 8 by c_cubed51

[Jessica In Heels]

3 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

At the time of saving the individuals, the RNLI doesn't ask questions about the preparedness or nautical prowess of those at risk of dying at sea.

Your anecdote is pointless.

You remain a petty-minded bigot.

Yes it is a charity and it’s run by donations, volunteers and the good will of many who give up their time and will find themselves in harms way to keep us safe.  
 

That said, the vast majority of RNLI rescue staff are volunteers also working regular jobs and whose employers will have to do without theirs services while they are on a shout.  An unnecessary shout imho.

It is not the remit of the RNLI to fill the void created by the UK and French governments inability to deal with this problem.  These people don’t go into the water by accident and nor do they unexpectedly need help,  quite the opposite in that the entire business model relies on the migrant summoning help the moment they enter UK waters.  That’s a government and political problem and for the Home Office to delegate this water taxi service to the RNLI is frankly abhorrent . 
 

RNLI rescue stats must be througj the roof.  
 

If nothing else, each migrant doing this should be charged a levy covering the cost of their needless and reckless decision to make such a journey requiring their rescue, to be paid in full before any application they make is even considered.

[ruby]

35 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

At the time of saving the individuals, the RNLI doesn't ask questions about the preparedness or nautical prowess of those at risk of dying at sea.

Your anecdote is pointless.

You remain a petty-minded bigot.

A new word bigot, so is that in preference to racist, mind you after Henry Novak that has lost its effect. Jessica sums it up entirely, the RNLI are not a taxi service, they are a last resort rescue service and should be treated as such.

[Alteredbhoy]

50 minutes ago, Jessica In Heels said:

Yes it is a charity and it’s run by donations, volunteers and the good will of many who give up their time and will find themselves in harms way to keep us safe.  
 

That said, the vast majority of RNLI rescue staff are volunteers also working regular jobs and whose employers will have to do without theirs services while they are on a shout.  An unnecessary shout imho.

It is not the remit of the RNLI to fill the void created by the UK and French governments inability to deal with this problem.  These people don’t go into the water by accident and nor do they unexpectedly need help,  quite the opposite in that the entire business model relies on the migrant summoning help the moment they enter UK waters.  That’s a government and political problem and for the Home Office to delegate this water taxi service to the RNLI is frankly abhorrent . 
 

RNLI rescue stats must be througj the roof.  
 

If nothing else, each migrant doing this should be charged a levy covering the cost of their needless and reckless decision to make such a journey requiring their rescue, to be paid in full before any application they make is even considered.

Asylum seekers in the Channel account for about 1% of total rescues for the RNLI per annum (though I expect they measured call outs, rather than individuals involved). The busiest RNLI stations, by quite some margin, are those along the Thames, not the Channel.

And call outs for the RNLI are determined by the Coastguard, not by the RNLI itself. If the Coastguard determines that someone is in peril, they call the Coastguard, who are obliged to respond.

[c_cubed51]

2 hours ago, Jessica In Heels said:

 An unnecessary shout imho.

IMHO this comment of yours about rescuing 140 people in peril on the sea is just as callous as rowlf's suggestion that they should simply be fired upon by cannon, and #47's "small potatoes" comment on the death  and destruction in Iran.

[c_cubed51]

RNLI boats carrying 120 migrants denied entry to two ports

Interesting report!

A quote from the report ...

The RNLI aided more than 36,000 people across its lifeboat and lifeguard services in recent annual figures, with crews launching over 9,000 times per year to assist those in distress at sea.

Its lifeboat crews have always launched to rescue those at sea without judgment or preference but throughout the small boat crisis, the charity has come under fire for its involvement in bringing migrants to British shores.

It has said its “one purpose is to save lives at sea” and justified its participation by stating “all small boats crossing the Channel are classed as being in distress”.

Some have compared lifeboat crews to a “taxi service” for people who do not actually need saving and are instead given a ride to Britain.

[Jessica In Heels]

58 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

IMHO this comment of yours about rescuing 140 people in peril on the sea is just as callous as rowlf's suggestion that they should simply be fired upon by cannon, and #47's "small potatoes" comment on the death  and destruction in Iran.

I’ve no interest in the usual slanging match that debates in here degenerate into.  I do not want bodies washing up on British beaches.  Nor do I want them fired upon.  I understand they will be rescued. The means and method of that rescue we will clearly have to disagree on.

But you attempting to align my comment with a Rowlf-ism is laughable and does you a disservice.  Imho.

 

[c_cubed51]

48 minutes ago, Jessica In Heels said:

But you attempting to align my comment with a Rowlf-ism is laughable and does you a disservice.  Imho.

An unnecessary shout? Who knows if any of the 140 people might have died had the RNLI not gone to their rescue. 

Let's not waste our time. Some may die, but who cares? Up there with rowlf's ridiculous suggestion, IMHO.

Thank God those volunteers and their companies hold a view which differs from your own!

[ruby]

2 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

An unnecessary shout? Who knows if any of the 140 people might have died had the RNLI not gone to their rescue. 

Let's not waste our time. Some may die, but who cares? Up there with rowlf's ridiculous suggestion, IMHO.

Thank God those volunteers and their companies hold a view which differs from your own!

They weren't going to die, that dingy was being tracked by the French. I read about it on Sunday before it landed. I was surprised that they were taking the long route, that is why they were being shadowed by a French vessel. I assume once they entered UK waters, the dingy raised a mayday and the French vessel went back to France. They weren't ever in danger.

[Jessica In Heels]

10 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

An unnecessary shout? Who knows if any of the 140 people might have died had the RNLI not gone to their rescue. 

Let's not waste our time. Some may die, but who cares? Up there with rowlf's ridiculous suggestion, IMHO.

Thank God those volunteers and their companies hold a view which differs from your own!

Yes it’s unnecessary shout.  It’s an intentional act engineered for their own purposes.  The volunteers doing this work should not be put in that position due to failings of French and UK immigration authorities.  

[c_cubed51]

Perhaps the two of you are ignorant about the ethos of the RNLI and didn't quite understand this bit in italics I quoted above:

It has said its “one purpose is to save lives at sea” and justified its participation by stating “all small boats crossing the Channel are classed as being in distress”.

Lives in possible danger matter more than apportioning blame for the situation, at least to the men and women of the RNLI who volunteer; and to the companies which employ them.

I realise both of you probably belong to the group which sees lifeboat crews as taxi drivers for people who don't need saving, but I share the purpose and idealism of the RNLI and its members. 

Lives matter! No matter what the status of the boats and the people in distress they contain.

It's a very necessary shout!

[Jessica In Heels]

10 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

Perhaps the two of you are ignorant about the ethos of the RNLI and didn't quite understand this bit in italics I quoted above:

It has said its “one purpose is to save lives at sea” and justified its participation by stating “all small boats crossing the Channel are classed as being in distress”.

Lives in possible danger matter more than apportioning blame for the situation, at least to the men and women of the RNLI who volunteer; and to the companies which employ them.

I realise both of you probably belong to the group which sees lifeboat crews as taxi drivers for people who don't need saving, but I share the purpose and idealism of the RNLI and its members. 

Lives matter! No matter what the status of the boats and the people in distress they contain.

It's a very necessary shout!

Nope.   It’s ceases to be necessary when you engineer the encounter four your own gain and ignore the advances of the French boats, choosing when, where and who you get rescued by because now it now suits your needs?  Sorry…not for me….

[c_cubed51]

10 hours ago, Jessica In Heels said:

Nope.   It’s ceases to be necessary when you engineer the encounter four your own gain and ignore the advances of the French boats, choosing when, where and who you get rescued by because now it now suits your needs?  Sorry…not for me….

So, some lives are worth more than others! You have disappointed me, Jessica.

[c_cubed51]

9 hours ago, Lynn and John said:

We have always in the past supported the RNLI and our local Air Ambulance mainly because we think it's a disgrace that the government doesn't fund these worthwhile causes. We feel guilty about withdrawing our support for the RNLI and have made an enquiry if it's a possible to make a donation to local Life boat bases such as those based in Yorkshire which don't have to waste resources in providing taxi services for migrant criminals.

It's a sensible move designed to assuage your guilt. At least your local lifeboat station will be able to continue saving the lives of people in distress upon the seas, thanks to your donations.

Good for you!!!

[Alteredbhoy]

1 hour ago, c_cubed51 said:

It's a sensible move designed to assuage your guilt. At least your local lifeboat station will be able to continue saving the lives of people in distress upon the seas, thanks to your donations.

Good for you!!!

The clue is in the name Cubed. It's the Royal NATIONAL Lifeboat Institute. I expect they will refuse to accept restrictions on where they spend donations.

The RNLI operates like the Fire Service. They address incidents based upon the danger to the people involved. When rescuing people in the water, or from fire, neither organisation questions who they are rescuing, or how they came to be in danger. They are simply rescuing people in danger.

Trying to suggest that some people in peril are more deserving of rescue than others is iniquitous.

[Jessica In Heels]

1 hour ago, c_cubed51 said:

So, some lives are worth more than others! You have disappointed me, Jessica.

What a horribly one dimensional point of view.  But attempting to put words in my mouth simply reinforces how content I am to stand apart from you on this matter.

[c_cubed51]

22 minutes ago, Jessica In Heels said:

What a horribly one dimensional point of view.  But attempting to put words in my mouth simply reinforces how content I am to stand apart from you on this matter.

Abuse of RNLI volunteers 'wholly unacceptable', chief says - BBC News

You do realise that you are part of the group which is demonising the good people who risk their lives, don't you? My view is hardly one-dimensional when I see the connection between your POV that sending the RNLI out to protect those migrants from possible death by drowning is a waste of personal and corporate time and money, and the thugs who hide behind masks and hoodies.

You are one of those abusers who is hiding behind your keyboard, Jessica.

I agree we will have to disagree on this issue.

Edited September 9 by c_cubed51

[Jessica In Heels]

Just now, c_cubed51 said:

Abuse of RNLI volunteers 'wholly unacceptable', chief says - BBC News

You do realise that you are part of the group which is demonising the good people who risk their lives, don't you? My view is hardly one-dimensional when I see the connection between your POV that sending the RNLI out to protect those migrants from possible death by drowning is a waste of personal and corporate time and money, and the thugs who hide behind masks and hoodies.

You are one of those who is hiding behind your keyboard, Jessica.

I agree we will have to disagree on this issue.

Im demonising nobody cubed.  
 

Perhaps it is you that is part of this problem, acquiescing to a charity being exploited by a criminal gangs business model.

Yes we will have to disagree

[Alteredbhoy]

19 minutes ago, Jessica In Heels said:

Im demonising nobody cubed.  
 

Perhaps it is you that is part of this problem, acquiescing to a charity being exploited by a criminal gangs business model.

Yes we will have to disagree

You seem to have missed the point Jessica that the RNLI are called upon by HM Coastguard. The Coastguard determines whether RNLI attendance is required and the RNLI simply responds to the Coastguards instruction/request.

The Coastguard determines that people are in peril and the RNLI goes and relieves that peril.

I cannot see any reasonable grounds for criticising the Coastguard for their factual determination of whether people are in peril, or the actions of the RNLI to address that peril. The blame lies with the criminal gangs exploiting the situation. 

People criticising the RNLI, or terminating their donations, are not doing anything to reduce peril at sea. Their actions are at best performative. They are not the obvious actions of those concerned with saving lives. I suspect that those who threaten to remove donations, most likely do not make donations in the first place.

[ruby]

8 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

You seem to have missed the point Jessica that the RNLI are called upon by HM Coastguard. The Coastguard determines whether RNLI attendance is required and the RNLI simply responds to the Coastguards instruction/request.

The Coastguard determines that people are in peril and the RNLI goes and relieves that peril.

I cannot see any reasonable grounds for criticising the Coastguard for their factual determination of whether people are in peril, or the actions of the RNLI to address that peril. The blame lies with the criminal gangs exploiting the situation. 

People criticising the RNLI, or terminating their donations, are not doing anything to reduce peril at sea. Their actions are at best performative. They are not the obvious actions of those concerned with saving lives. I suspect that those who threaten to remove donations, most likely do not make donations in the first place.

You are absolutely right in your analysis, the issue for the RNLI is it doesn't look good. It puts their charity under a spotlight which most charities in this day and age really do need to avoid. I gather from reading around, sure the volunteers are the people that do the work, they are the people that risk their lives. That is what people see. Like most charities they have become top heavy with a CEO and many others on nice fat salaries, perhaps they are worth it but in the world we live in it is not something you don't want publicized. These are not real emergencies so the Coastguard should be calling the Border Force and if I remember correctly should have some nice new boats. I am told the CEO and several other members of the organisation are lawyers so perhaps they should be informing the Government that they are not a "taxi" service. 

[Alteredbhoy]

It is interesting to note the apparent Memorandum of Understanding signed between Nigel Farage and Jordan Bardella of National Rally, unveiled at Reform's Conference.

It is interesting on several points.

Firstly, it seems to be an acceptance by Reform that their previous (and only recently announced) policy of using the Royal Navy and Marines to return migrants to France against the wishes of the migrants and the French authorities was unworkable. It suggests that this policy was nothing but political theatre aimed most likely at gullible Restore voters. There have been several posters on the Ontario Topic Forum who have supported the military suggestion, without being able to explain how it would work in practice.

Secondly, this appears to me to be simply a magnification and adaptation of the current arrangement that Starmer negotiated with France whereby migrants can be returned. It removes the need for the UK to take asylum seekers in return and ramps up the numbers being returned. But to stop the crossings, it needs the deterrent of return to prevent the crossings. Reform argued that Starmer's policy would not work, though it does appear to have had an effect. Now they seem to be arguing in favour of it.

And thirdly, it is all hypothetical. It depends upon National Rally winning next year's French Presidential election and Reform then winning the 2029 General Election in the UK. And if Bardella fails to win, then Reform's winning becomes otiose.

I don't understand why Bardella has agreed to such a strange deal. Agreeing to take potentially tens of thousands of asylum seekers from the UK does not seem like an obvious vote winner for an extreme Anti-Migrant party like Nation Rally. Marine Le Pen has already cast doubt on the policy. 

It seems like yet another piece of performative theatre dressed up as policy.