Portsmouth Protests

[NoisyBrickDog]

Why are they all shouting "Shame on You" towards the police - when it was the RNLI who brought them all to shore?

Surly they should be shouting this towards the lifeboat crews....?

I completely respect that the RNLI does an amazing job saving lives of people in danger at sea.

However in this case the dinghy got into trouble and asked for assistance some 13 miles off the French coast when one of the two outboard engines broke down. A French vessel offered to rescue them by taking them off the dinghy and back to France. This offer was refused by all on the dinghy.

Instead they continued their course to the UK under one engine. Once in UK waters they accepted to be taken off the dinghy and onto RNLI vessels.

So if this was a genuine rescue with people genuinely at risk (which imo an overloaded dinghy, with only one of two engines working in the middle of the busiest shipping lanes - is genuinely at risk) then the migrants should have accepted the French offer of rescue. Instead they chose to put their lives at greater risk by continuing their journey to UK waters to be picked up by the RNLI.

Which returns to the original question of whether this was a rescue of people in danger at sea or a mid channel taxi service.

I did.

If they were fleeing from a war zone why would they risk the crossing when they were perfectly safe in France? I stand by what I said, we should send them back because we pay France enough to stop this from happening in the first place.

They may have friends and family already in the UK. Once they are here they can’t be sent anywhere until their case for asylum has been heard. They are then either granted leave to remain or their application is rejected and then they must leave the country - if they stay it is only at that stage they are illegal.

Which imo an overloaded dinghy, with only one of two engines working in the middle of the busiest shipping lanes - is genuinely at risk

Which returns to the original question of whether this was a rescue of people in danger at sea or a mid channel taxi service.

Kinda answered your own question there @1dayatatime

There’s some stuff which appears to be correct but I don’t think they do have to take a boat all the way across if near France. They’d go to a French port.

But usually they’d only be there if requested by the French for help.

On crossing the sea border it is sometimes instructed by traffickers to wait until crossing and then alerting for help. It’s not really RNLI issue as the coastguard will instruct them to go.

Yes but why not by the French rescue boat?
If the French cannot rescue them because they aren’t technically in trouble, theres the issue. They will always be more likely to be in trouble the further from France they get. And then they have to be met and escorted in even if not in trouble as they entering as asylum seekers.

It was a theoretical example and of course highly unlikely for an RNLI vessel to be sat 250 metres off Le Touquet beach. Although bizarrely I did once see a fire engine from Kent Fire Brigade with firemen all suited up drive through Dusseldorf many years ago!

Anyway in this theoretical example if an RNLI vessel did rescue someone just off Le Touquet beach then under current maritime rules and regardless of distance it would have to take the people back to the UK, unless it was agreed with the French authorities and in the time that would take, it would be far quicker just to sail back to the UK.

OK then if we agree that the dinghy was in danger and indeed the dinghy did communicate to the French coastguard that it was in danger then the dinghy and the migrants should have accepted the offer of assistance from the French vessel.

If your vessel is in danger and you communicate that it is then you should accept the first offer of help and you shouldn't get the opportunity to shop around as to who rescues you or even worse to continue your journey and make the risk even higher which in turn increases the risk to the rescuers.

The fact that they did exactly this raises the question of whether they genuinely wanted saving or instead a free taxi ride to the UK.

The French RLNI did go. They refused help until picked up in English waters.

The RLNI then had to rescue them because they were in danger and had called for help.

They then had to return them to the Uk.

The asylum seekers weren’t going to turn themselves back into French waters. The French RNLI have no duristriction to physically rescue them whilst they are on the vessel And it’s better for the RNLI to rescue them whilst in a busy shipping lane before the problem become an urgent emergency. Safer for the crew as well.

We don’t wait for yachts with broken outboards to sink or get hit by a ferry before they are rescued.

The RNLI has released a statement explaining their duties. Volunteers have been attacked both online and physically by these thugs. Utterly disgusting.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1QVjkEyYjB/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Or keep yourself safe.

Imagine having to make a very dangerous choice of being in the water, hoping for rescue.

A huge risk to your life.

Why would anyone take that risk….

Yes, and I think people who don’t understand the danger and talk about the RNLI as a ‘taxi service’ are, ironically, exactly the kind of people who are likely to require the services of the RNLI.

So one of the two outboard engines on the dinghy stopped working whilst the dinghy was in French waters. The dinghy radioed this to the French rescue vessel - at this point an overcrowded dinghy in the middle of the busiest shipping lanes with only one out of two engines working is very much in danger.

However the offer by the French to rescue the migrants from the dinghy was refused by all of the migrants. It was only once the dinghy was in British waters did the migrants agree to be "rescued " and then only by the RNLI.

Ironically the type of people that think that when your vessel is in danger at sea and your life is at risk that you still get the right to "shop
around" and choose when and where you should be rescued and choose which rescue vessel to get on, clearly have no idea of the intended role of the RNLI and the risks that the RNLI are undertaking let alone the risks to the migrants.

The moment you allow people (who radio that they are in distress at sea and require assistance) the right to decide where and when they get to be rescued and to choose what rescue vessel to get on and to choose exactly where they will be taken to safety, then yes it is no longer a "rescue service" and instead becomes a "taxi service ".

Absolutely this.

This is exactly what I mean.

You think they are 'shopping around', and you seem to be implying that that they were only pretending to be in danger.

However, anyone with knowledge of the English Channel would see that they were in danger just because they were in an overcrowded dinghy in the middle of the busiest shipping lane in the world.

Ironically the type of people that think that when your vessel is in danger at sea and your life is at risk that you still get the right to "shop
around" and choose when and where you should be rescued and choose which rescue vessel to get on, clearly have no idea of the intended role of the RNLI and the risks that the RNLI are undertaking let alone the risks to the migrants.

Yes, the smugglers are very bad people who do not care if all the migrants drown. Nobody is disputing this. However, the RNLI does not make a judgement when it rescues people. Its goal is to save lives. It is safer for everyone if the people are rescued at the point when nobody is trying to prevent or resist rescue.

Most border crossings don't involve the RNLI and they will continue to save people from drowning, regardless of why they got into trouble.

https://rnli.org/news-and-media/2021/july/28/statement-on-the-humanitarian-work-of-the-rnli-in-the-english-channel

‘I could not be prouder of our amazing volunteer lifeboat crews, who launch to the aid of anyone who is in trouble in or around the water and needs our help. We have done this since the RNLI was founded in 1824 and this will always be our ethos.'

Some people do not share these British values.

They are - by the lorry load at Watford Gap services.

So what are you suggesting - that everyone turns back and leaves them to drown?

That is not what the RNLI does.

It is the nature of the crossing that people will wait to cross the sea border if they can. Traffickers will advise them to wait.

To add it’s not due to the RNLI but just the impact of traffickers selling a passage and advising on how to get there.

I don't disagree.

@iwishitwouldstartraining

"So one of the two outboard engines on the dinghy stopped working whilst the dinghy was in French waters. The dinghy radioed this to the French rescue vessel - at this point an overcrowded dinghy in the middle of the busiest shipping lanes with only one out of two engines working is very much in danger."

Exactly in which part my paragraph do you think that I am implying that the migrants were only pretending to be in danger

The migrants first reported that they were in trouble when they were just 13 miles off the French coast but refused to taken off their dinghy there and continued their journey until they reached just over the English side of the Channel.

It would have been far safer for both the rescue services and the migrants to have been rescued just off the French coast rather than in the middle of the Channel. By choosing to continue their journey they not only placed their lives at greater risk but also those of the French and British rescuers.

Imagine this scenario, you have two RNLI vessels plus a French vessel plus a dinghy bobbing around in the middle of the Channel trying to transfer over a 100 migrants, when out of the mist comes a 100,000 tonne container ship doing 20 knots on autopilot that then collides with them. Just because the migrants got to choose where they get rescued. This is not an unrealistic scenario- do you think it's acceptable?

My point remains that
"The moment you allow people (who radio that they are in distress at sea and require assistance) the right to decide where and when they get to be rescued and to choose what rescue vessel to get on and to choose exactly where they will be taken to safety, then yes it is no longer a "rescue service" and instead becomes a "taxi service "."

Ok but the current laws mean the French rescue can’t intervene and the English coastguard have to respond to a distress call, often deploying the RNLI.

So yes what you’re saying is kind of the case, in that people wait to cross the sea border. To fix that is a big task with established laws here and internationally etc. it can be done but needs votes.

My point remains that
"The moment you allow people (who radio that they are in distress at sea and require assistance) the right to decide where and when they get to be rescued and to choose what rescue vessel to get on and to choose exactly where they will be taken to safety, then yes it is no longer a "rescue service" and instead becomes a "taxi service "."

So what do you suggest the answer is? Forcing a rescue is going to be dangerous for everyone involved.

No I'm suggesting that when the French vessel first approached the migrant dinghy some 13 miles off the French coast and offered assistance but assistance was refused that the French vessel simply returned to port and the RNLI vessels never set sail.

If you offer to help and help is refused then unfortunately they have to take the consequences of their decision.

So once the migrants were in British waters and asked for help they should have been told "no" by the RNLI and any other vessles nearby? That would be ridiculous and dangerous and I think against Maritime law.