To think the RNLI are 100% in the right

[SanFranBear]

I've just seen this story on the BBC news homepage where the RNLI are being accused of acting as a taxi service for migrants trying to enter the UK on small boats from Europe.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8dejyg4l37o

The organisation and volunteers quite rightly have responded to say they make no apologies for saving lives at sea and that their work has no political motivation.

Damn straight - one of the volunteers further down the article explains the profound impact he feels of encountering people struggling in our waters.

It makes me wonder what critics of the service expect them to do - just sail away, leaving the people to die? Pick them up and cross the channel to dump them back 'where they came from'?

What is wrong with them? Where is their compassion? Regardless of your thoughts on immigration, this is so cold and inhuman....

https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/

You think laws about accepting 'refugees' have been in existence for "centuries"? You're complete wrong. They're post-WW2 and in any case are no longer fit for purpose.

Also, your definition of "functioning country" and mine are quite different: your definition seems to be "operating as an unaffordable global charity jamboree and free-for-all".

The most basic duty of the state is to protect its citizens. Ours no longer does and hasn't for some time.

There is a big difference between

An economic migrant, seeking a better life & asylum
Versus
A person seeking asylum due to war, famine, natural disaster, political or religious issues

Personally, I would take more women & children directly from war zones

There are already charities that provide food, clothes & help for people in camps in France.

However, many people have travelled through lots of safe countries & have UK as their final safe destination for various reasons.

Wow
Hard did they have to search to find a photo with a woman and child in it .
All the footage I have seen is just men

https://news.sky.com/story/at-least-13-dead-after-boat-with-dozens-of-migrants-sinks-in-channel-13208838

All the more reason to set the asylum acceptance rate at 0 and move everyone to a British overseas territory to be processed in a basic camp. Let them know that they'd be wasting their money and risking their lives in an attempt that would be entirely futile.

Human beings respond to incentives and disincentives: don't build it and they will not come.

People dying in the channel is a reason not to keep this chaotic system going.

And no no one has simply replaced it with safe routes because demand is too high.

If anyone wants to reduce deaths and risk then look to what has worked.

Why do you need a camp to process claims if you wan to set the acceptance rate to 0?

Even in the height of war it’s the law of the sea to rescue anyone who’s drowning even if they’re your bitter enemy. So I think they are doing the right thing rescuing them! It’s what happens after that should change, sticking with the war scenario they could be put in a safe and secure facility until they are processed.

Accept 0%. Anyone who still attempts to get in illegally, process long away from the UK in an overseas camp with the knowledge that they'll never get here and will receive nothing.

Attempts would soon drop to zero.

Law and Maritime customs regarding rescuing people in peril at sea. I don't give a flying fuck about irrelevant 20th-21st Century political stuff, the RNLI are following the principles of Maritime Law as set down formally in SOLAS in 1910 and previously a universally accepted convention with seafarers.

A version of helping somebody just because they needed help is detailed in the Bible, there are ancient accounts of rescuing people from shipwrecks, the Dragon Boat festival has been going for over 2000 years in celebration of an attempt by fishermen to rescue a famous poet from drowning, there was an obligation to save lives and then cargo before a ship in Amalfian Law, there were official lifeboats on the Yangtze River in the 19th century and any number of ordinary mariners who would attempt to save crew and passengers throughout human existence.

Tl;dr I'm not wrong, you just didn't read the posts properly and assumed I was talking about conventions on refugees when I was talking about a moral and later legal obligation to provide assistance. And my definition of a functioning country is one where you don't shrug your shoulders and turn away when people are drowning because they might be foreign.

None of the above were to rescue people who were there to rob or extort them. That's what this is: economic warfare. The RNLI is a cog in a machine which is stealing British resources.

It's equivalent to a burglar telling you they might kill themselves if you don't open your door to them.

In any case, all of this could be solved by simply having an acceptance rate of 0% and deporting all to a basic camp on overseas territory, with the guarantee that they'd never get to the UK.

Have the Royal Navy take over rescues in all "High risk" areas, board them, and then transport them to the overseas territory.

I live near water

The weather can change dramatically, several times a day

I support the RNLI

We cannot put a rule about who gets rescued at sea or river. It is a case of everyone or nobody

What next, we only rescue certain people from fire, car accidents, building collapse, natural disasters ?
Have you seen the news that various countries are in the wake of tsunamis currently ?

When my Kurdish friend fled her native country, she didn't carry any documentation for fear she would be returned to her home country, where she had been imprisoned and tortured for 2 weeks.

We have a local charity that supports refugees. A lot of the members accommodate refugees in their own homes until the refugees can get their own accommodation if they aren't entitled to social housing.

I support them by helping them get benefits in place while they are finding work and if they are eligible.

Er, because they are refugees. They can’t just hop on a plane, train or ferry. Most don’t have a passport. It’s pretty difficult to travel in any of the ways you blithely suggest without one. Which is why they get here by any means possible in order to claim asylum.

Obviously.

I hope to Christ that you’re never in need of asylum.
Barbaric.

When a country gets the chaotic and dangerous system right down it’s just not seen as a good way timo do it.

Using criminals to move people for vast profits, abuse and risk just isn’t wanted. Humanitarian quotas is much better.

They don’t need donations, they have a HUGE reserve.

Oh, I thought they were asylum seekers … deciding not to claim asylum in other safe countries, so arriving in UK by stealth, but legally.

I get confused when people say it 100% legal for any person to arrive in the UK by boat to reside with no visa. But right, they’re ALL refugees / asylum seekers so they can just pay criminals to get them in … because France/EU is so unsafe (so glad we left unsafe EU!!).

Why don’t we just put on daily ferries? Why aren’t people begging PM for this service? Why why why are you all so happy they pay traffickers to put them on dangerous boats???? The hurdle for getting to UK is a boat journey. If u can survive the channel - you are welcome to stay. That’s so wrong..

Vote yes for open borders and free safe passage. Welcome one and all.

If you could speak English, which is what myriad people in Africa and the ME have as a second language, would you not try to get to England?
Perhaps it’s colonialism biting us on the arse, eh?

Ok, mate.

Look into your ancestry. I guarantee you that your forebears were immigrants.

You are confused indeed

It's not illegal to claim asylum, it's also not illegal to reject an asylum claim.

No open border poliies or everyone can stay