Stand off drowning migrants and report – or face prosecution, sailors warned

babspanky

Of course I would not watch someone drown whoever they were .
I do notice though that a lot of people are calling the immigrants asylum seekers. They are not asylum seekers, they are illegal immigrants. France is not a war zone.

No they are asylum seekers, and asylum seekers are NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

They are entitled, under international law to seek asylum in a country of their own choice.

maisiebon

I cannot believe the French don't know who is selling these boats and who is buying them, they really are turning a blind eye and really don't care as long as they get rid of the migrants

They take more than we do so it is wrong to say they don't care as long as they get rid of the migrants.

I have just been watching the French lunchtime news. Interviews with people in the street in Calais, deeply upset by the tragedy. Lots of film of gendarmes helping people on to coaches to be taken to refuges elsewhere in France.
Does any of this get on the UK news?

These people are choosing for whatever reason to seek asylum in the U.K..

They are perfectly entitled to do so under international law.

Michael Rosen ????
@MichaelRosenYes
·
3h
Politicians puffing themselves up by talking about ‘criminal gangs’, as if that’s the ethical way of dealing with a refugee crisis. The ethical way to deal with refugees is to help them.

Here here

A bit more from the article in The Local.

"The “Calais problem” cannot be solved in Calais because it is not a Calais problem. It is a small part of a European, or world, problem of displacement of peoples by war or famine or misery, which has no simple solution either.
It is time (some hope) for the British public and British media and British political class to face a few simple facts.
The notion that Britain is being “swamped” (grotesque word after what happened yesterday) by illegal migration is nonsense. In the last couple of years, the numbers of asylum seekers/ refugees/ illegal migrants reaching Britain has reduced, not increased.
It has reduced because France – working on Britain’s behalf – has blocked the routes by which the migrants once crossed the Channel, by ship or tunnel, truck or train.
Hence, the beginning of the small boat “invasion” three years ago, rising to a crescendo with 25,000 successful crossings this year. To which should be added an estimated 50,000 crossings blocked by the French and, now, miserably, at least 40 drownings since the start of 2021."

Gwyneth

So why not accept the UK’s offer to help patrol the beaches * Mokryna* ? Obviously it won’t solve the problem completely but any additional help that will prevent another tragedy like this one happening has got to be worth it surely?

We could ask why doesn’t the UK run ferries and accept these people in the UK to deal with the applicants, of which normally ninety-eight per cent (said on the UK tv) are accepted, instead of making them traverse the dangerous English Channel.

1 month to Christmas - a time of peace and goodwill we are told by good Christians.

Bah!humbug!

What is needed here is for someone either an owner of a private vessel or a lifeboat crew to rescue someone and if proseceuted to have all court expenses paid by some right minded citizen or firm that can afford to be charitable.

The rest of us need to start writing to the newspapers, politicians and clergy protesting about this state of affairs, if indeed it is true that seamen rescuing others at sea risk prosecution.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would issue the kind of warnings mentioned here, but assume OP is sure of the facts.

Certainly, none of us who call ourselves decent people and honestly try to be decent can just accept this kind of thing.

That said, it is unbelievably stupid to try to cross the English Channel at this time of year in what looked from the press photo I saw like a rubber dingy. I realise these people are desperate, but common sense should still have prevented this, though drowning is a dreadful result of stupidity.

vegansrock

Surely there should be a British processing centre in France where potential migrants could apply for settlement in the U.K. Then there wouldn’t be this necessity to take risks travelling. At the moment they can’t apply till they are on British soil. This would mean cooperating with France though.

Just listening to Jeremy Vine where they’re discussing this question. First of all France have to agree to having our Border Force operating in their country. Secondly, not all applicants would be granted asylum so the unsuccessful ones would still try to get here illegally.
Perhaps it might be a start to ban the sale of inflatables, canoes, dinghies, jet skis etc. Not going to happen is it.

On a much smaller scale , we could help by donating to the Refugee Council to provide a few comforts for those newly arrived with very little. I have just sent a very modest sum to purchase some warm clothes and a few toys..

So why not accept the UK’s offer to help patrol the beaches * Mokryna* ? Obviously it won’t solve the problem completely but any additional help that will prevent another tragedy like this one happening has got to be worth it surely?

Someone on Jeremy Vine just now spoke about this. How would we feel if we had French policemen or troops patrolling British beaches? Or flying drones over them?

Sorry, HLL, cross post!

Regarding banning the sale of inflatables etc. Where would they ban them, in what locations? Because the traffickers could just bring them in hidden on trucks. Clue's in the title. Inflatables.

Secondly, not all applicants would be granted asylum so the unsuccessful ones would still try to get here illegally.

If the Home Office were fit for purpose one would assume that they would be swiftly repatriated, not left at large to try to cross the channel.

I can’t even begin to imagine how cold those people feel when they’re in the dinghy. They have to wade out to get in the boat, and are therefore beginning their journey wet up to their knees. I would be terrified, I hate small boats.

MaizieD

^Secondly, not all applicants would be granted asylum so the unsuccessful ones would still try to get here illegally.^

If the Home Office were fit for purpose one would assume that they would be swiftly repatriated, not left at large to try to cross the channel.

Repatriated where because of Brexit it wouldn’t be to an EU country.

Surely this contravenes maritime law! Who could stand by and not help 'those in peril on the sea' - we are a seafaring nation. How can anyone justify watching desperate people drown!!!! Our government brings us shame.

Tragic pictures of people setting off yesterday in a hopelessly overloaded and unsuitable boat. They think it's going to be a short journey and have no idea how dangerous the channel is. With the water temperature now they will succumb to hypothermia very quickly if they don't drown first.

Well said Coastpath, I am very happy to keep paying. These are people and each has a life snd could easily have been you or me.

whether we approve of asylum seekers coming here or not,they are human beings,I don't like to hear of them drowning,and I would hope that they could be saved if possible.

westendgirl

Thank you Mamie for your post. I heard something very similar on Today this morning.
The problem here is that the whole issue has been aggravated by the overblown claims of some newspapers fed by the likes of Nigel Farage, often to try to manipulate Joe Public to vote in a certain way .

Oh dear, same old same old.

Repatriated where because of Brexit it wouldn’t be to an EU country.

'Repatriation' usually means returning them to their home country, mokryna. Though I'm well aware that there can be problems with this.

HannahLoisLuke

vegansrock

Surely there should be a British processing centre in France where potential migrants could apply for settlement in the U.K. Then there wouldn’t be this necessity to take risks travelling. At the moment they can’t apply till they are on British soil. This would mean cooperating with France though.

Just listening to Jeremy Vine where they’re discussing this question. First of all France have to agree to having our Border Force operating in their country. Secondly, not all applicants would be granted asylum so the unsuccessful ones would still try to get here illegally.
Perhaps it might be a start to ban the sale of inflatables, canoes, dinghies, jet skis etc. Not going to happen is it.

They do agree, when it suits them. Hence employed around the tunnel and ports.

I'm a taxpayer, been working full time since I was 16, and for many years of that in very low paid jobs.

With the approx 80,000 asylum seekers in the UK at the moment, who receive just under £40 each per week, that costs me (one of currently just over £30,000,000 taxpayers in the UK ) the massive sum of 9p per week. In actual fact, I probably pay a lot less than that, as a lower rate taxpayer.
For less than 2p a day, I am absolutely happy to support these poor, scared, homeless people who have been in the absolutely devastating position of losing pretty much everything. To be honest, I'd happily pay an awful lot more.

I can't begin to imagine what desperation they must be going through, to even attempt the over-land journeys, let alone the sea crossings. They are human, many well educated, but regardless, human.

I really can't begin to understand those who would rather they drowned. These people are a valuable asset to our country, but regardless of whether they have any economic value to us, they are human.

Where is our compassion?

"Perhaps it might be a start to ban the sale of inflatables, canoes, dinghies, jet skis etc. Not going to happen is it."

... where would you ban the sales - Calais? Surrounding areas - perhaps the whole of France? Or even countries bordering France - Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany?

It's not going to happen because it really is not the solution.