the only real difference

I’m out of this thread.

Funny how my point of view was deemed inappropriate yet you pursue yours biba expecting no challenge. One sided much? Agree with me or be quiet.

this thread was never about 'opinions', yours or mine- it was about a boy, very like our own boys. RIP.

This was happening daily and shown on our news as desperate Syrians tried to reach Greece.

The war in Syria gets worse but people are so concerned about COVID that other tragedies are being largely ignored.

An online newspaper can report the facts but is it responsible for the comments of anyone who may read the article?

Rather like GN really.

I think that the DM reader's comments are "lightly moderated" Callistemon, to put it mildly! I don't think I'd like to see the comments in the DE either for that matter.

I have been told

Is it not a good idea to read the report in the newspaper named before making a judgement?
I've just read it and it seems quite factual. However, I have not read the comments underneath.

After all, should Gransnet be judged by some of the recent posts?

Surely this latest death just emphasises how vital it is to put a stop to these attempts.

All the hand-wringing in the world on here and elsewhere won’t stop these immigrants attempting to get here illegally and these deaths will continue especially if they keep trying once the weather changes.

Tough action is needed to break the people smuggling gangs until the message gets back to others that if they wish to come here they HAVE to apply through the official means.

One way perhaps would be to state that those attempting illegal means of sneaking in here would have their application automatically rejected.

Like Australia? And we could have Canvey Island and the Isle of Wight as our very own Nauru and Manus Island? Maybe not.

It was the comments after the article that Biba was referring to. I too am disgusted by people who think the death of a person in such sad and desperate circumstances is a cause for celebration.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8644713/I-met-boys-Sudan-beach-nearby-Theres-one-word-lips-England.html

I don't see any celebration here, biba70

I never scroll down to read the comments of bigoted people any more than I pay much attention to posters on Gransnet who make comments just to shock others.

Why would anyone read the comments?

So that they can be outraged Callistemon? As if the incident itself isn't outrageous, shocking and sad enough.

Yes, it's dreadful enough without reading the views of idiots.
Unbearable to think about.

And from what I saw, the vast majority were exactly that. Not celebratory at all.

biba70 you were totally wrong when you claimed that the DM
was celebrating the death of the migrant.

Neither were there any comments remotely like that from readers.

I think an apology is in order from you for making such an inaccurate, outrageous claim.

There were some, to be fair, JE but not the majority.

I think an apology is in order from you for making such an inaccurate, outrageous claim.

If apologies for inaccuracies are in order I think it should be you making your apologies for posting inaccurate rubbish about the status of the poor child who lost his life, JE.

Asylum seekers/refugees are not 'illegal'. Crossing the Channel in a small boat is not 'illegal', nor is landing in any country. Any 'illegality' which may arise is if the asylum seeker applies for asylum (which has to be done in the country), is refused asylum and then does not leave.

All this hysteria about 'illegality' completely ignores international law and is designed to whip up hatred for fellow humans who have suffered hardships which most people cannot begin to imagine.

Many European nations, and in particular Britain, built their ealth on invading countries, brutalising/murdering/subjugating their indigenous peoples, imposing their own cultural norms, stealing their natural resources, etc, etc. We reap what we have sown and I find it ironic that large sections of the British public so self-righteously speak of "illegals" "invading" our land

Galaxy

It's not the mail itself it's the people who are commenting on the story.

Exactly.
There are always some bigoted and horrible people/comments on any subject, even tragic drownings ,
If I were you biba I wouldn’t read a newspaper you disapprove of and especially not any comments by the readers.
It was a really sad story which we can all empathise with.

Eloethan also France Germany and Belgium.....their citizens don’t welcome migrants either, especially illegal ones.
It’s not just our problem, it’s true, but the UK is the magnet.

MaizieD despite you explaining on another thread that these unfortunate people are not illegal immigrants, some posters refuse to believe it. And some still question why these people don't stay in France, which has also been explained on threads they contributed to. I despair.

These unfortunate and desperate young men are paying criminal gangs to enter the UK illegally, therefore on their arrival they become illegal immigrants until such time they claim political asylum and then they have to wait for their cases to be heard.

Until then they are housed, clothed, fed and given an allowance. The accommodation varies according to which newspaper you read. If they are under eighteen they are often housed with families and attend college.

Here it all is again, just to emphasise the point:

Dan Sohege
Human rights advocate, international refugee law specialist, immigration economist,

An asylum seeker is entitled to seek asylum, without penalties as to manner of entry, specifically due to the circumstances necessitating their flight from persecution. This is a matter of international rather than domestic law, not EU specifically as alluded to later on,

Safety, as understood through case law, is subjective. Now France may be considered safe for you and I, however, as evidenced by reports of police brutality and its being found guilty of breaching refugee rights by ECHR, among other things, it may not be for asylum seekers.
This hasn't stopped 150 thousand plus individuals applying for asylum there, however, the multiple factors involved in determining an individual feeling of safety have meant that a small fraction, 4,300 roughly, have felt unsafe enough as to make a dangerous channel crossing
As an aside, the same can be said throughout the EU, for example Germany has approximately 166+thousand applications, yet people may not feel safe there due to the 1,600 record attacks against asylum seekers last year.
The Dublin III Regulations, cover a member state's responsibilities. They are not the governing instrument regarding asylum seekers however, which is the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Neither these regulations, nor the convention, nor any refugee law instrument by the way state that an asylum seeker has to seek asylum in any specific country. Leaving the EU does not remove the UK's obligations under international law
Leaving Dublin III Regulations all but guarantees it becomes harder for UK to send asylum seekers back to France, Particularly case as France routinely deports them to Libya, which is an active conflict zone, and thereby risks breaching non-refoulement
Non-refoulement is not a specifically refugee law focused tool. It is covered by a number of human rights instruments and means you cannot deport someone to an unsafe country, or a third country where they may then subsequently be deported to an unsafe country

Use of the phrase "economic migrants". The only way to demonstrate that someone is not a "genuine asylum seeker" is by processing their application. A failure to do so is also a breach of international, not EU, law.

Now, it is is also worth mentioning that while the channel is governed by international maritime law it is not illegal to cross it, It is, however, illegal for the navy to violate French waters or for a vessel to fail to render assistance to those in need on the seas.

Again, this has nothing to do with the EU and is a matter of international law which the UK will still be subject to upon the ending of the transition period. As a sovereign nation the UK is at liberty to remove itself from these treaties though

I would argue that anyone who had the "country's best interests at heart" would not suggest that making it a pariah state and diminishing its influence in the international community, which this would undoubtedly do, was the way to go about this.

Referring to a letter the writer was responding to. I'd echo his last sentence in respect of some posters on here...

From start to finish this letter is full of inaccuracies and misconceptions. I would suggest that in the genuine interests of the country it would be best for a serving MP to learn at least a basic level about the laws governing it before spouting tripe.

Thank you MaizieD but it does not detract from the fact that criminal gangs are making a fortune out of human misery.

Authorities probably know who they are, the sellers of the boats/dinghies know who they are but they are not prosecuting them so the continued trafficking of humans will be the new normal route for migration into the country of choice, wherever that may be.