Tieribly angry wee fannies fannying about with the tiers

[dancemom]

Things moved quickly so I just started a new one ...

No I'm not arguing for the sake of it. I'm arguing because you seem to think it's acceptable to be vile and condescending to certain posters who make valid points that you may not agree with. You're contradicting yourself. You say there haven't been test cases yet you seem completely confident about how this law would play out.

I feel similar about the HCB. I don't think for a second that people will be prosecuted for bitching about transpeople in their own living rooms but the point is that the law seems to suggest that they could and that's a potential problem. I think this is very similar hence the post by the QC who is almost maybe as much an expert as you on a good day if he's lucky 🤣

@florafoxtrot

Nobody is doubting the integrity of the RNLI. The point that is being made is that the proposed legislation effectively criminalises their actions. Set aside all that you know about how things work in practise. Do you really not see that interpretation?

Exactly.

[quote Scottishskifun]@forfucksakenett she stated the legislation prevented rescue of people, it doesn't neither does maritime law. No law is ever going to state that if someone is drowning you check paperwork before rescuing them that's just plainly obvious!

Think you will also find I stated in previous posts about test cases in court as well 😉[/quote]
I can't be bothered looking back but I'm quite sure I didn't say that. I actually then attached a screenshot of a QC's statement on twitter and this is what I've been referring to. I've also written ,'No one is saying the the RNLI will stop rescuing immigrants.'

@florafoxtrot

Nobody is doubting the integrity of the RNLI. The point that is being made is that the proposed legislation effectively criminalises their actions. Set aside all that you know about how things work in practise. Do you really not see that interpretation?

As said at sea, maritime law takes precedent against any immigration law (and the majority of UK laws). Its a QC stating wording, that clause is never going to be used against the RNLI it's not the purpose of it, crown prosecution isn't going to follow that case either. You can't be prosecuted if the crown prosecution service refuse!

It's like saying about the old by laws which didn't get repealed until the early 2000's about it being OK to shoot a Welsh man in the back with a crossbow on a market day around the English/Welsh boarder made it OK in 1995 to do so. If you did it anywhere from the murder act came in then you would still be trialed for murder but that legislation still existed (mostly because they forgot to repeal it) its still not a defence against the murder as the murder act takes precedent.

Actually, they're not at sea if they're bringing them to shore.

Why did The Home Office remove the 'for gain' part of the legislation? Certainly not to go after the traffickers. Will the RNLI volunteers be prosecuted in a court? Unlikely. It's a shitty message to send regardless.

It's absolutely nothing like that and you know it. It's a completely typical Tory move. It puts the actions of the RNLI in a grey area and sends a hardline message. If rescuing asylum seekers and bringing them to our shores effectively becomes illegal then it is on some ways irrelevant whether they are prosecuted or not. They are taking part in what is effectively a criminal act. It undermines them.

The government brought us Windrush, the rape clause, the harshest and cruelest benefit sanctions, and a whole host other examples of things that are quite frankly unbelievable. I trust them not a jot.

Why remove the 'for gain'? Why did it need changed in the first place?

[quote WouldBeGood]**@Cismyfatarse it’s Tuesday 3rd she’s telling us what’s happening.

I really hope it’s not the usual cautious bollocks. It’s really clear now that there is no clinical need for this and that ongoing restrictions are disproportionate. Businesses and schools need to know what’s happening and not just short term.[/quote]

I'm expecting it to be lifting of all remaining restrictions
By end of Aug pretty much everyone who wants to be will be double jagged (my 18 yr old gets 2nd jag in 4 weeks)
So if not now what are we waiting for, a blue moon🤷🏼‍♀️
And agree with @Cismyfatarse schools need to get back to nearer normality
If you can sit in a pub with no face mask you can sit in a classroom

Unfortunately they've timed the exit wave for the schools going back

I really hope so @latissimusdorsi!

I’d like to be excited but am too worried.

Though things are changing: dd and I went to a garden centre/giant emporium of tat today and things were much more relaxed on the mask front,and people not leaping out of your way. Felt like a bit of a shift. Staff also relaxed on the mask front.

@StarryEyeSurprise

Actually, they're not at sea if they're bringing them to shore.

Why did The Home Office remove the 'for gain' part of the legislation? Certainly not to go after the traffickers. Will the RNLI volunteers be prosecuted in a court? Unlikely. It's a shitty message to send regardless.

I have no idea why they removed it they still aren't ever going to prosecute the RNLI and RNLI is never going to check status before rescuing someone!

Its been a media pick up storm it doesn't really put the RNLI in the grey they will continue rescuing people it's what the volunteers do.
There are several different points legislation applies - international waters, offshore waters, territorial waters, high water tide mark (then their is aviation ones).

I don't know why they changed it I can only presume its because of the number of deaths as dangerous crossings has been increasing over the years.
As said early on its an incredibly tough situation to resolve, I don't agree with the new legislation but at the same time the number of deaths is horrific and something has to be done to stop gangs making profit sending men women and children to their deaths in the majority of cases.

don't know why they changed it I can only presume its because of the number of deaths as dangerous crossings has been increasing over the years.
As said early on its an incredibly tough situation to resolve, I don't agree with the new legislation but at the same time the number of deaths is horrific and something has to be done to stop gangs making profit sending men women and children to their deaths in the majority of cases.

Why don't you agree with the new legislation?
Why would removing the words 'for gain' have an impact on the number of deaths?

@WouldBeGood

I really hope so *@latissimusdorsi*!

I’d like to be excited but am too worried.

Though things are changing: dd and I went to a garden centre/giant emporium of tat today and things were much more relaxed on the mask front,and people not leaping out of your way. Felt like a bit of a shift. Staff also relaxed on the mask front.

Is it too outing for you to say where this hint emporium of tat is? I do love places like this.

I hope schools fo back completely as normal with no restrictions at all but I fear that may be too much to hope for.

Ooh I love a giant emporium of tat @WouldBeGood
Particularly just before Christmas

I hope schools fo back completely as normal with no restrictions at all but I fear that may be too much to hope for.

I would love this too but I think masks will be here in schools for some time to come.

No, I can say @forfucksakenett as it’s not where I live. It’s the one at Garrion Bridge down the Clyde valley way. It’s huge, and has a good kind of granny cafe (my favourite type) and an extremely eclectic selection of items for sale!

Thank you @WouldBeGood that looks fabulous!

@forfucksakenett

*don't know why they changed it I can only presume its because of the number of deaths as dangerous crossings has been increasing over the years. As said early on its an incredibly tough situation to resolve, I don't agree with the new legislation but at the same time the number of deaths is horrific and something has to be done to stop gangs making profit sending men women and children to their deaths in the majority of cases.*

Why don't you agree with the new legislation?
Why would removing the words 'for gain' have an impact on the number of deaths?

I don't agree with the legislation because its very knee jerk, they haven't consulted enough with refugee charities on it or extended programmes properly enough which allow for legal refugee application routes.

I can only second guess that it's to stop the defence "they didn't pay me" which then becomes difficult to prove one way or another due to cash or black market occurring elsewhere but I don't work for the home office so that's a complete and utter guess!

Ok so @Scottishskifun. So the RNLI comes across a vessel in distress in the UK channel. Their own charter and of course the UN convention states that they perform a rescue and of course they do so. Yet if they then bring them back to the shore, they’ve committed an offence under UK law. And they can be prosecuted as such. So how does that work? Do they chuck them off 12 miles from land? Can they use the UN convention as a defence. Probably not, as it’s not ratified into UK law. Perhaps their are defences within the Immigration Legislation? I’m not sure.

The point that Starry made - with a valid source - is that legislating to make rescue at sea illegal is fairly horrifying.

You seem to be of the opinion that the UK Home Office is implementing this legislation to try to reduce volume of deaths resulting from the migrant crisis. Do you truly believe that is the intention?

@florafoxtrot the RNLI is a voluntary rescue service they would not be breaking the law anymore then the coastguard (a govt agency) would be especially given the coastguard work directly with the RNLI!

I think there is a serious crisis which is incredibly difficult which is resulting in a high number of deaths. I do not know what the answer to it is and its incredibly complex!
I do think this legislation is a knee jerk reaction to try and stop people smugglers yes and deter the number of attempts which have increased massively with severe and very sad consequences.

As said I think it's been rushed through.
The home office also changed the policy to allow many Hong Kong residents to apply to settle in the UK if they wished.

Immigration is a huge emotive subject which is incredibly difficult. I don't know what the solution is but I think majority of people will agree that people smugglers need to be stopped from putting men women and children on tiny overloaded dingies with barely enough fuel in all sorts of conditions many of which are at risk of drowning and they don't care as they have their money and will do the same thing in a few days.

I'm clearly being very thick. Why would they not be breaking the law?

@StarryEyeSurprise

Actually, they're not at sea if they're bringing them to shore.

Why did The Home Office remove the 'for gain' part of the legislation? Certainly not to go after the traffickers. Will the RNLI volunteers be prosecuted in a court? Unlikely. It's a shitty message to send regardless.

I assume the "for gain" bit was removed because it would be basically impossible to prove whether money had changed hands or not. I'm sure it has in pretty much all cases, but that's one extra level of "test" that prosecuters would have to prove. So by removing it, all they would have to prove is that the person bringing migrants in knew they were doing so. (Which I'm not sure the RNLI would, though they could be expected to have strong suspicions, which may be enough in law, I'm not sure).

I suppose the QC is pointing out that the RNLI are, incidentally, as well as saving lives, bringing migrants onto UK land rather than letting them drown in international waters. If someone tried to prosecute the RNLI for doing that (who the fuck would?!) under this new legislation, the defence and judge would look at all the relevant legislation, including that, but also the other legislation that scottishskifun mentions, and reach a decision as to whether they had acted illegally. IANAL but I'd be willing to bet it would be decided that their obligation to save life would override any legislation that appears to prevent that. Though the QC is fairly making the point that the legislation does seem on the surface to conflict with that. Which you'd have thought someone would have had concerns about before now!

Quite @ResilienceWanker. And that’s why for me the legislation is poorly considered, poorly drafted and worthy of some debate and discussion.

I don’t have a solution to this ongoing humanitarian crisis but I also don’t think that’s what the Tories are seeking to find either!

@forfucksakenett

I'm clearly being very thick. Why would they not be breaking the law?

Because they are doing so under maritime law as directed by govt agency, the maritime and coastguard agency. When RNLI respond to shouts its come direct from the coastguard, when someone is in trouble you call 999 and request the coastguard.

Yes but that’s around performing a rescue. It is the point afterwards which is problematic and potentially illegal under this proposed legislation.

@WouldBeGood

I really hope so *@latissimusdorsi*!

I’d like to be excited but am too worried.

Though things are changing: dd and I went to a garden centre/giant emporium of tat today and things were much more relaxed on the mask front,and people not leaping out of your way. Felt like a bit of a shift. Staff also relaxed on the mask front.

Oh, I do love a tat emporium! Especially with a café... Maybe Dobbies can be this week's Holiday Educational Experience. Plants are biology which is educational, yes?!

@florafoxtrot

Yes but that’s around performing a rescue. It is the point afterwards which is problematic and potentially illegal under this proposed legislation.

🙄 So your saying a govt agency is going to direct a rescue volunteer charity to tell them to go rescue people and then the border force (another govt agency) and the police are going to wait for the RNLI volunteers to land with people they have rescued and arrest the volunteers and not have rescued people checked over by medical personnel?!

Come on even if enjoying the argument you can see how ridiculous that statement is to say the RNLI are breaking the law when they land they are directed by a govt agency!

I will let you all go research how the RNLI functions, under which maritime law and why emergencies take precedent in legislation as I don't know how many times the same thing needs to be said. The RNLI will not be arrested, investigated nor prosecuted.