To think the UK and France should not be sued for manslaughter over migrants drowning?

[OneRuleForThem]

A humanitarian group are suing the two countries saying they left migrants to drown. AIBU to think this isn’t right? I don’t think either “left” anybody to drown and they need to realise that getting on an inflatable boat packed to the rafters and attempting to cross the Channel isn’t a good idea.

www.france24.com/en/europe/20211220-france-uk-authorities-face-manslaughter-lawsuit-over-deaths-of-27-migrants-in-channel-capsizing

The Paris prosecutor’s office said it has received a manslaughter lawsuit for failure to help in the tragic capsizing last month of a boat in the English Channel that cost the lives of at least 27 people trying to reach Britain.

The manslaughter lawsuit, filed Friday by the French humanitarian organization Utopia 56, accuses the maritime prefect of the Channel and North Sea, the Regional Operational Centre for Surveillance and Rescue of Gris-Nez in the Pas-de-Calais and the British Coast Guard of not doing enough to prevent the deaths.

Utopia 56 said it “intends that investigations be carried out to determine the responsibilities of the French and British rescue services in this tragedy,” adding that the people were abandoned “despite calls to the English and French rescue services.”

@Chasingaftermidnight

I certainly would not risk my children's lives crossing the Channel in a leaky inflatable boat

No. No one would do that for fun. So… what does that tell you about the position these people are in?

It's not quite that simple is it?

Threads like this make me want to leave mumsnet forever (again)
But I suppose it is good to understand how little understanding or compassion there is in the world. No-one puts their child in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.

Our immigration policy (and France's) is what causes people to have to try to enter the country in perilous ways. And those policies are based on racism and economic policy founded on the model that we don't have enough to go round.

Utopia 56 said it “intends that investigations be carried out to determine the responsibilities of the French and British rescue services in this tragedy,” adding that the people were abandoned “despite calls to the English and French rescue services
Yet 70% of Mumsnet think that it's their own fault and they have no right to seek to know the truth as to what happened or didn't happen.

Threads like this make me want to leave mumsnet forever (again)
I agree. I've read quite a few shocking threads but this one leaves me completely deflated about humanity especially when lost in between all the threads moaning about Xmas

@daimbarsatemydogsbone when the choice is "get in the boat or we'll shoot you / your child" I would think that's very simple, don't you?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/25/bit-like-drowning-scene-film-titanic/

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10244087/The-migrants-told-cross-shot-SUE-REID-exposes-trade.html

An acquaintance of mine worked in the navy and patrolled foreign waters

They said that the traffickers would overload boats and not worry about the seaworthiness of the vessel, they would also force people into the boats

Didnt matter to them whether those people finished the journey alive

Tragic

Sorry havent read all the posts but if they did make a call and no response perhaps it was because the lifeboats etc were already overwhelmed rescuing other migrants ?

@thedefinitionofmadness

Threads like this make me want to leave mumsnet forever (again) But I suppose it is good to understand how little understanding or compassion there is in the world. No-one puts their child in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.

Our immigration policy (and France's) is what causes people to have to try to enter the country in perilous ways. And those policies are based on racism and economic policy founded on the model that we don't have enough to go round.

Well said, I'm hoping that the thread title is attracting a certain type of person, and is not representative, but it's pretty depressing.

@Tiny2018

As per usual, this is a poor attempt to paper over the cracks of the issue rather than get to the route of the problem.

Put the money towards dismantling and imprisoning the trafficking rings who shamelessly profit from people desperately in search of a better life for themselves and their families.

But the trafficking is not the root of the problem.

The root of the problem is in war zones, in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and in oppression/turture in so many other countries, and the fact there is no safe way out.

Some see a perilous journey as less scary than staying put or years stagnating in refugee camps. I understand why some choose the option.

My mind is constantly blown by the fact I got born here, and they got born there. The randomness of life still makes me feel weird.

We cannot solve the worlds problems Afghanistan is a good example of this 10 years of occupation reverts in 7 days

Seriously what was the point? politics? Did we actually help ANYONE by going in?

@Theunamedcat

We cannot solve the worlds problems Afghanistan is a good example of this 10 years of occupation reverts in 7 days

Seriously what was the point? politics? Did we actually help ANYONE by going in?

We could however not interfere at all. War needs resources and prolonging what should just have been a civil war in the name of ‘democracy’ doesn’t do any good. Even countries that ostensibly have ‘dictators’ while not the best place for human rights can remain relatively stable. Only the people of a country can fight for change, nobody else and it’s a gradual cycle.

We know the traffickers are scumbags. No need to distract the issue here which is whether the French and British authorities acted as they should.

What I read is that the seas were calm that day, there wasn't unexpected huge activities and rescues. They were in the water fir 11 hours. They claim they called both authorities and each pass the buck saying they were in the other side of waters and so not their responsibility.

If this is all untrue, then fair enough. If it true then, absolutely that some should be held responsible.

That's why it is fair enough there should be a court case to get it all out in the open.

[quote Lockheart]@daimbarsatemydogsbone when the choice is "get in the boat or we'll shoot you / your child" I would think that's very simple, don't you?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/25/bit-like-drowning-scene-film-titanic/

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10244087/The-migrants-told-cross-shot-SUE-REID-exposes-trade.html[/quote]
At that point I agree it's a simple choice - but there's always a lot in the run up to that point.

For the avoidance of doubt - I am not unsympathetic to the plight of these people at all - I am sure there's every likelihood I'd do the same if I was them.

That's a different issue from the wider ones at play.

I do think the UK should establish better legal routes to facilitate refugees resettlement in the UK.

No matter what anyone says, france, or the numerous other countries surrounding it through which migrants pass, is not a war zone. It is a safe developed country. Only a minority of migrants are determined to settle in the UK, far more happily opt for Germany or France because these are fundamentally safe places to rebuild your life. Migrants who drown in the channel have made a choice to go on those boats & to take their children with them. Its terribly sad, I suspect many are very misinformed when making those choices but it does not make it the fault of the UK or France that people put their lives at risk in this way.

@vivainsomnia

We know the traffickers are scumbags. No need to distract the issue here which is whether the French and British authorities acted as they should.

What I read is that the seas were calm that day, there wasn't unexpected huge activities and rescues. They were in the water fir 11 hours. They claim they called both authorities and each pass the buck saying they were in the other side of waters and so not their responsibility.

If this is all untrue, then fair enough. If it true then, absolutely that some should be held responsible.

That's why it is fair enough there should be a court case to get it all out in the open.

This was on BBC news last night. The coastguards had 90 calls that day, the boat left France at 10 pm, and sank a couple of hours later.

The traffickers MO is to put an overloaded unseaworthy boat out to sea, and the passengers are given the phone number of the UK coastguards to call and ask for help. In that situation, with pretty much every boat calling for help, in the dark, it must be difficult to figure out which boats need immediate assistance, and where they are.

@vivainsomnia

We know the traffickers are scumbags. No need to distract the issue here which is whether the French and British authorities acted as they should.

What I read is that the seas were calm that day, there wasn't unexpected huge activities and rescues. They were in the water fir 11 hours. They claim they called both authorities and each pass the buck saying they were in the other side of waters and so not their responsibility.

If this is all untrue, then fair enough. If it true then, absolutely that some should be held responsible.

That's why it is fair enough there should be a court case to get it all out in the open.

Where did you read this? Also where 11 hours? www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/21/asylum-seekers-drowned-in-dinghy-shipwreck-named-by-bbc

Boat sank a couple of hours after getting into trouble, a couple of hours after that survivors attempted another call

Do we know they were ignored? Or was it just next to impossible to locate them in miles and miles of open sea, in a tiny boat that doesn’t show up on radar when they have no flares or navigation equipment to give any would be rescuers even a rough approximation of their location. Pair that with this I’m being one of 90 odd calls all the same and honestly it’s a miracle ANY rescues are successful.

Our immigration policy (and France's) is what causes people to have to try to enter the country in perilous ways. And those policies are based on racism and economic policy founded on the model that we don't have enough to go round.

I think you have it backwards, the UK immigration policy is one of the most liberal and anti-racist in the world. That is why they want to come here. Not only is it one of the cheapest visas going to come and work here, you can acquire citizenship after only 5yrs residency. U.K. also allows dual citizenship, so does not force migrants to renounce their home country unlike many other countries do.

I’m not saying we should make immigration stricter than it is to solve this problem. But your post is backwards. They would not risk their lives if we were a country that refuses vast majority of asylum applicants and immediately deports them back to their home country. Or a country that might let them stay, but never let them acquire citizenship.

@lifeturnsonadime

I think it is absolutely right that action be taken. If it is correct that distress calls were made and ignored then regardless the reasons they were in the waters if they could have been saved they should have been.

As a nation we shouldn't leave people to die. That's absolutely horrific.

This with bells on.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b7bd2274-88b1-4ef9-a459-be22e180b52c

This article reports that, 'All of them were economic migrants and nearly all of them had previously tried - and failed - to get to Britain via legal routes multiple times. They had all also attempted to cross the Channel at least three, and in some cases six, times before in small boats.'

That level of desperation is shocking. Even more so, the fact that one family of four paid £32,000 for the journey.

Three other rescues occurred that night too.

I would imagine the call went something like:

We need help we’re sinking
What’s your location?
English Channel
Can you be more precise?
We’re in the open ocean in the the channel
Do you have a flare or light or any way you might get the attention of a passing vessel?
No

I mean, what on earth can they do with that information? And the 90 others just like it all in the same night? Just set off, risking the rescuers lives also and just hope you find someone? And then if you do you still wouldn’t know of the people you found were the ones who called or some other group

I agree with the court case to establish the facts as to whether any attempted distress calls did actually go through. And if so, what the French and/or British rescue response was after receipt. So much is unknown right now, I am seeing conflicting statements in the press so don’t know what is fact and what is alleged. Which is why Utopia56 is calling for a full investigation. If they were callously ignored and left to die, then I think whoever is responsible should be held accountable.

Maritime Law is Maritime Law. You answer distress calls. Whoever is making them.

Utopia 56 said it “intends that investigations be carried out to determine the responsibilities of the French and British rescue services in this tragedy,” adding that the people were abandoned “despite calls to the English and French rescue services.”

I'm aware of what they've claimed, but am interested in how they're supposed to know what happened. It seems someone else has heard there were two survivors, but on a crowded boat in crisis, doubtless with others screaming and shouting, is it realistic that these two were aware of who was calling who and exactly what was said?

Same with refugees being "forced into boats at gunpoint" ... again, is there any verifiable evidence of this, or is it hearsay?

Yes I agree @NeverDropYourMoonCup on maritime law and answering distress calls if you are able. But even that is no guarantee of successful rescue with zero lives lost. It’s not unheard of for boats/ships to get into trouble, get a distress call through with exact location, send up flares and the nearest ships just don’t get there in time for all or most passengers/crew on the boat/ship.

So the fact that 27 drowned isn’t proof they were deliberately left to die.