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....?

What I am suggesting is that when the dinghy set off from the French coast, assistance was offered but refused, then the French vessel should return to port, the RNLI never set sail and the migrants ultimately and unfortunately take the consequences of their decision.

So let them drown, or hit by other shipping (and who cares about any trauma or danger to those on board).

Good god.

Thankfully it will not happen.

Which would be against the entire 200 year old ethos of the RNLI and the standards of any rescue service.

It’s better to change laws than go for this. It’d just be 130 odd people drowning.

Exactly.

And it wouldn't make a difference to the vast majority of illegal migrants who don't arrive in England on a small boat.

You must have seriously dehumanised migrants in your head @1dayatatime to be OK with letting them drown. I find that pretty shocking.

How many people drown on the crossing? I don't know, but it's loads. How are we going to reduce those number? Do you not care that by rescuing (sometimes) we are encouraging people to make the journey and drown?

I don't think we should let people drown at sea, no. Just as I don't think we should let other people who take dangerous risks and end up needing help die.

There are other and better ways to reduce the numbers than letting people drown. If you read the thread there have been lots of discussions.

And what are other vessels doing now that the people are in the water in the busiest shipping lane in the world? Commericial and leisure vessels know that they have a duty to help people in danger of drowning if possible and many take this duty very seriously. Do we say don't bother if they look like they came from Albania? Are they allowed to attempt to save children?

Alternatively you could find other methods to dissuade people from crossing the channel in small boats that don't involve children finding bodies on the sea shore.

Commericial and leisure vessels know that they have a duty to help people in danger of drowning if possible and many take this duty very seriously

I suppose some posters will say the law should change so they aren't allowed to help. I would imagine the trauma of having to sail through a bunch of drowning human beings and not be able to help would be very traumatic indeed for those on board.

It’s better to aim for fewer deaths at sea not more. The policies have increased drownings in the Mediterranean, elsewhere other approaches have stopped them.

Absolutely not - if the migrants were in British waters and requested assistance then yes either the RNLI or the nearest vessel should go to help them and yes it would be against international law to not do this.

It could then be decided whether the best / safest course of action would be to effect the rescue. But the location of the rescue and who does the rescuing should be decided by the emergency services and not for the migrant dinghy to decide where, when and by whom they get rescued. Otherwise it does become a "taxi service ".

But co ordinating a mid channel transfer of migrants only to an RNLI vessel in a busy shipping lane puts everyone at risk.

How dare you!!!
he has all his swimming certificates from school you know (or so he claims in the video)

You are contradicting yourself, I think? You said:

What I am suggesting is that when the dinghy set off from the French coast, assistance was offered but refused, then the French vessel should return to port, the RNLI never set sail and the migrants ultimately and unfortunately take the consequences of their decision

Which seems to be suggesting you think the migrants should have been left to drown?

I think I get the change you’re after but it would be physically hard to take people off a vessel if they don’t want to be removed.

So rather than effect a safe rescue just 13 miles off the French coast you would rather let them continue to the mid point of the Channel to effect a transfer of 100 migrants to the RNLI putting both the rescuers and the rescued at greater risk.

Simply because the migrants should get the right to choose where, when and by whom they get rescued?

In no way am I suggesting that they should just drown but if the rescue services offer assistance and that offer is refused then yes there maybe a consequence that refusal to accept assistance.

You seem to be suggesting that if the rescue services approach a vessel offering assistance and that offer is declined then the rescue services should just hang around for the crossing just in case they change their mind?

This then means that the RNLI or French vessels would not be available to help someone else does require assistance.

My position is very simple- the rescue vessel offers assistance, if assistance is declined then the French rescue vessel returns to port. If rescue assistance is accepted then it is effected. But you don't get to choose when, where and by whom you get rescued, otherwise it becomes a "taxi service".

I totally agree it would be physically hard to take people off a vessel if they don't want to be rescued. But in that scenario the rescue services have fulfilled their duty to offer assistance. If you want to choose when, where and by whom you get rescued by then you have to accept the additional risk that decision carries.

So rather than effect a safe rescue just 13 miles off the French coast

It's not a safe rescue if they are 13 miles off the French coast and resisting rescue attempts.

Simply because the migrants should get the right to choose where, when and by whom they get rescued?

They don't have the right to choose. It's just that it is inevitably safer for everyone and easier to control if they are rescued at a point where they are compliant.

but if the rescue services offer assistance and that offer is refused then yes there maybe a consequence that refusal to accept assistance.

So they can be picked up by yachts? A ferry?

You can argue the toss about what UK Border Forces should do with them once they are in their hands, but you just don't seem able to engage with the practicalities of what it means to allow people to drown.

People clearly have very different views on immigration and there is nothing wrong with that, but there are some standards that are a test of humanity, and if we as a country can't maintain those standards, the country is not worth protecting.

Exactly. It would put the rescuers in danger.

But effecting a mid channel transfer of 100 migrants in a busy shipping lane further out to sea puts the rescuers in greater danger than 13 miles off the French coast.

Not only can they be picked up by a yacht or a ferry, there is a maritime legal obligation to do so, if the yacht or ferry is closer to those needing rescuing.

I am able to see the risk of people drowning but what are the rescue services supposed to do if they act humanely offer help but that offer is declined. Just hang around in case they change their mind? In which case it puts others at risk because the rescue services are no longer available.

I think they do yes, the boats are escorted - or the term shadowed is used - across the channel if they’re detected.

No one seems to care about the risk to others who might need rescue services whilst this malarkey is going on.

Do you not think it's better that people are picked up by the RNLI who have experience and training?

Just hang around in case they change their mind?

I don't think anyone is unaware of what is intended, so I doubt that there is much 'hanging around'.

Most small boat crossings do not involve the RNLI, but just as they rescued German airmen during both world wars, they will rescue people who are in danger of drowning at sea without judgement.

That is what they do.