“Refugees Welcome” – two cyclists are creating the world’s biggest piece of GPS art in charity ride across southern England

Please don't try and twist what I post.

The status quo leads to drownings, if you attempt to pick up every vessel and bring it to the UK for processing all you do is encourage more people to attempt the journey and you get more drownings.

Personally I don't want anyone to drown in the channel so I'm not prepared to support a policy that will inevitably lead to just that.

You may think it's 'compassionate' to operate a policy that leads to innocent people drowning needlessly. I do not.

If turning back boats leads to fewer deaths then how is it a 'bad thing'?

And if turning boats back lead to more drownings?

if people are desperately coming out to sea in unsuitable boats in even though people have drowned previously, then why do you think they will stop trying now?

at least border patrol have learnt what the. Met didn't and forced the decision to send people back directly on Patels shoulders. Although I'm sure she will be blamimg them if deaths do happen after a decision is made stating they gave her false information about the scenario at the time. 

If that were the case then you would have to reconsider.

The channel crossings are arranged by organised criminals, once the likelihood of a successful crossing fell then so it would become far less lucrative for them.

Combine that with a location to claim UK asylum on the European mainland or an agreement to share refugees with the EU and the channel crossings would virtually disappear.

I didn't twist anything. The status quo is Patel's policy and you state that the status quo leads to drownings.

You claim that rescuing people from drowning leads to more people drowning. There is no evidence to support this. 

You speculate that turning back unsafe boats into dangerous waters leads to fewer deaths. Again, nonsense.

The fact that you put the word compassionate in inverted commas is very revealing. You want to defend policies that are amoral, endanger lives and contravene our international obligations, and your defence for them is that it's  other ideas that endanger lives. It's playground squabbing at best. But it's on the continuum of: the RNLI are responsible for drownings by saving people from drowning or anti-fascists are the real fascists or footballers saying there should be less racist abuse are Marxists. This is how your argument looks, even if it's not your intention.

I answered your previous question in good faith, as I believed you were genuine but for you there was some sort of principle at stake, over which we disagree; however your latest reply has shown I was badly mistaken.  I won't reply again as seeing someone bend over backwards to defend the indefensible is not top of my weekend priorities. 

Enjoy your weekend.  Stay safe.

It's a very simple principle.

If we accept that it's impossible to save 100% of people crossing the channel from drowning then it it obvious that as the number of people attempting the crossing increases so do the number of drownings.

If you make the crossing more attractive then more people will engage in it and more people will die.

The policy of rescuing people from the channel and bringing them to the UK has led to over 300 deaths since 1999.

This is the policy you support.

I will not support a policy that leads to hundreds of deaths.

If that is "immoral" then I suggest you have an unusual set of moral principles.

If it is possible to safely collect boats and bring them to the UK shoreline then, obviously, it is also possible to safely collect boats and return them to the French shoreline.

Another part of your argument is therefore proven to be nonsense.

Once it becomes clear that crossing the channel by boat now has a much lower likelihood of success then the numbers doing so will drop and therefore the number of drownings.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's a very simple principle... Once it becomes clear that crossing the channel by boat now has a much lower likelihood of success then the numbers doing so will drop and therefore the number of drownings.

I fully support the concepts that (a) people traffickers should be arrested and imprisoned like the ***** that they are and (b) it should be possible to claim asylum easily and not just from within the UK.

I fully dispute the assertion that it is just as easy to return rescued people to France because this is (a) illegal and (b) a breach of international human rights and I also fully dispute the fact that this would lead to fewer deaths; the Lybian coastguard has rammed and shot at those attempting crossings as well as returning them to the Lybian coastline.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/09/returning-migrant-vessels-violates-maritime-law-and-moral-obligation

https://theconversation.com/turning-back-migrant-boats-what-does-the-international-law-of-the-sea-say-167679

https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210726-at-least-57-europe-bound-migrants-drown-after-boat-capsizes-off-coast-of-libya

Good day for a bike ride though.

How can it be physically more difficult to return a vessel to France than to bring it to the UK?

If the French were to intercept them in French waters and return them to France that would be even better.

The status quo leads to hundreds of drownings including children.

The idea that we're morally obliged to continue a system that drowns children is preposterous.

If you don't think that making it harder to successfully cross will reduce the number of crossings that's up to you. I think that once it becomes less profitable to the people traffickers they'll look elsewhere.

You wouldn't be denying the people the right to claim asylum, you'd merely be taking them to the asylum centre in Europe to apply so there would be no breach of international human rights law. As you'd be taking them safely to the French shore you also wouldn't be violating any maritime laws about rendering assistance.

The only way to stop the drownings is to stop the crossings.

Nice straw, man!

I didn't say it was physcially more difficult, I said it was illegal.

It is no more physically difficult for me to jump on your bike and ride it away than it is mine, but it is still illegal.

If you can come up with a system that is legal in international law and leads to a better outcome then please go ahead.  Given your last post however, you obviosly do not understand martitime law. 

I also suspect that to get such a system implemented however you will have to come up with a bit more evidence than imagining in your head that things would be better, despite evidence to the contrary (for which links have been provided for your education).

Ok, given you clearly understand more about maritime law than I do.

Please explain, how is it illegal under maritime law to escort a vessel safely to French soil?

If you support a system that drowns children then you cannot claim the moral high ground.

It is an absolute imperative to find an alternative. Refusing to try is to be complicit in the ongoing deaths.

Rich, why don't we ask the French to escort the refugee boats to British shores?

Innevitably safer as if they were escorting them back to France then these desperate people would just try again.

In fact, because it's all about preventing drownings, especially of the children, why don't the French use their very safe warships to ferry these refugees straight to UK ports?

The bit I don't understand about this is what is so terrible about asylum in any EU country, with possible exceptions such as Hungary. It seems hard to believe that shitey old Blighty is worth risking your life to get to. What is so awful about life for asylum seekers in France?

Because if we want to stop the trafficking, one way is to make the journey unnecessary.

I really, really don't know.

But they do, and they are willing to properly risk their lives to do it, so they at least do seem quite determined.

That is the question.

What is it about the UK that makes people willing to risk their lives and their children's lives just for a chance at claiming asylum here when they are already able to claim asylum in any Schengen country?

We aren't anywhere near the most popular destination for asylum seekers in Europe. The impression that we are generally comes from nastier elements of the press, right-wing loons in below-the-line comments and politicians pandering to them. The majority don't come here but for those who decide to risk their lives to, there will be many reasons.

markieteeee wrote:

but for those who decide to risk their lives to, there will be many reasons.

one of which is that there is a thriving business where unscrupulous traffickers will take your money to risk your life, in a bid to get ahead of others who don't/won't play with their lives. To be complicit in maintaining that business model is to be complicit in the risk to life it presents.

You can argue about how to dismantle that business. One way is to defeat its aims - a business that can't deliver does not survive. Of course you have to do that without increasing the risk to life.

I doubt unscrupulous traffickers are anywhere near anyone's top thousand reasons for seeking refuge in the UK, however once they've set their mind on coming, these people will take advantage so they definitely need dismantling. Illegally pushing unsafe boats full of desperate people back into dangerous waters, and ignoring international obligations, does nothing to prevent traffickers; it's acting just like them. Supporting this is the very definition of being complicit. There's not much between state-sponsored disregard for human life and criminal disregard for human life - except the expectation that your elected representatives ought to care somehow makes it much harder to stomach. 

Defeating the aims of traffickers would take international co-operation and, among other measures, the establishment of safe routes for refugees. The details, like you say, can be argued over. Some people on this thread aren't really concerned about saving lives or defeating criminal gangs though, so will be back again with disingenuous nonsense, so brace yourself. 

markieteeee wrote:

Some people on this thread aren't really concerned about saving lives or defeating criminal gangs though, so will be back again with disingenuous nonsense,...

No, I don't think that's true. Some people set themselves up as the arbiter of good intentions, and impugne the morals of any who disagree with them. I don't think it helps their argument.

It's odd that you can read comments in support of our country abandoning international obligations, supporting pushing desperate people back into dangerous waters from posters who accuse others, who would prefer to save  lives in UK waters, of supporting drownings, but are more upset about the manner of anyone challenging them. I don't think anyone here holds themselves up as a moral arbiter but as mentioned before: while you're free to state your views, you're not free from being challenged. The more extreme, weird or objectionable a post, the more likely that someone will challenge it.  NB I don't know your views so was not referring to you in my previous comment, if that's what made you make this post. 

Who has supported pushing people back into dangerous waters?

If you support the status quo then you support a system that will inevitably lead to more drownings.

You have to take responsibility for the outcomes of your decisions.

I'm unsure why you've aimed this towards me. I questioned how anyone could claim that the status quo, which is Patel's policy, was compassionate.  I'm sure you remember this, as you defended it. 

Since then you have been arguing with others that the status quo leads to drownings and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of supporting a policy of drowning.  Alongside this, you've come up many suggestions about how to treat desperate people. Turn them back, process them elsewhere, accompany them to another country. I laughed at the idea of a Hastings RNLI boat having to sail to some sort of facility in France because you see no reason why it's more difficult to go across the channel in an unsuitable boat bring people to shore. 

You want our country to be international pariahs and of course it's all because you care and no one else does.  The only thing all of your suggestions have in common is the insistence that under no circumstances should black or brown faces be permitted to arrive on our shores for first-time asylum applications. Maybe if your ideas are adopted, after being dehumanised, the majority, if not all, will weeded out along the way. I'm sure your next disingenuous comment filled with indignation will be hard to read but I won't. I feel bad for being so blunt but really, you've dragged on this nastiness for weeks. It's time to stop.  Stay safe. 

That really is a pathetic reply.

We have a situation in which hundreds of people are drowning.

We have a potential solution to this problem.

You don't want to change the current situation and instead of trying to justify your position you simply make lazy accusations of racism.

By trying to shut down debate on this matter in such a way people like you are directly responsible for the deaths in the channel.

Despite this you probably consider yourself one of the 'good guys'.

Your self delusion would be amusing if the outcomes weren't quite so tragic.

Again, my very starting point was that I don't support the status quo. Yet here you go again repeating the same nonsense, accusing other people of supporting drownings. You seem to enjoy false accusations as part of your obfuscation yet can't take being challenged on genuine things you have said   

I'm happy to correct it if I summarised any of your policies wrong, but you haven't pointed anything out. 

Do you support the ongoing process of rescuing migrants from the channel and bringing them to the UK?

If that's not true then we have had a misunderstanding.

If it is true then my point remains valid.

As shown by the Australian experience, shutting down sea crossings dramatically reduces drownings.

Continuing with the current practice therefore leads to unnecessary drownings.

If you support the current practice then you bear responsibility for those unnecessary deaths.

If you look further down the thread I have advocated for safe, legal routes to asylum for those asylum seekers who are in the EU.

Your insinuations that I wish to exclude 'black and brown' people from the UK is therefore baseless and reflects very badly on you.

Rich_cb wrote:

Do you support the ongoing process of rescuing migrants from the channel and bringing them to the UK? If that's not true then we have had a misunderstanding. If it is true then my point remains valid. As shown by the Australian experience, shutting down sea crossings dramatically reduces drownings. Continuing with the current practice therefore leads to unnecessary drownings. If you support the current practice then you bear responsibility for those unnecessary deaths. If you look further down the thread I have advocated for safe, legal routes to asylum for those asylum seekers who are in the EU. Your insinuations that I wish to exclude 'black and brown' people from the UK is therefore baseless and reflects very badly on you.

Rich, I do genuinely applaud your desire to reduce deaths in attempted channel crossings. I think we are almost there. Can we all agree that the ideal solution would be for the UK to create a massive asylum processing center in France (probably near Sangatte) that people could approach BEFORE they get in to the hands of people smugglers?  Such a center would provide good quality accommodation, free legal advice, food, etc and avoid the need for anyone to attempt to cross the channel in an unsafe boat. I think the French government would go for such an option. How about you?

I have previously suggested something very similar to this.

Personally I think it may be wiser to locate it further from the channel tunnel and ferry ports otherwise it may exacerbate the problem (as the previous Sangatte camp did) and it may be best to have several smaller centres rather than one large centre.

According to the papers today we are currently in negotiations with the French to build a network of smaller centres based a long way from the coast which will hopefully give refugees an alternative to the people smugglers.

Even if all genuine refugees could be given an alternative safe route to the UK we'd still require a strategy to deal with boats as the people smugglers smuggle economic migrants too, as seen with that horrendous tragedy in the refrigerated lorry.

First of all, your question is based on a false premise.  Nobody rescues migrants and brings them to the UK. The question assumes that they are being brought into UK waters by rescue boats or border force.  It's simply not happening.  We do, however, have an obligation to rescue anyone in trouble in  UK waters, regardless of their status. UK waters are part of the UK, so they are already here - not being brought here. It's been a long-standing duty of seafarers to rescue drowning people and they take this to be a moral imperative but now it's also enshrined in international law too.

If you had maybe asked something along the lines of: should we rescue people in trouble in UK waters, then the answer is of course yes.  It's a legal as well as moral obligation. And it doesn't matter how many times that you say it, there is no evidence that rescuing drowning people leads to more people drowning. 

I believe someone has already pointed you to the fact that you are mistaken about the Australian model - turning boats around does not cut drownings or save lives. I suppose that the best you could argue that there are less drownings close to the Australian coast (although unclear figures and lack of openness throws this into question), however there aren't less drownings overall - they're just happening in Sri Lankan, Indonesian, Cambodian and other waters instead. Also many of the boats return to places where the occupants are tortured, imprisoned or killed.  It's NIMBYism of the worst kind - let them die elsewhere, get them off our stats.  

If you care about lives, it's impossible to justify Australia's method as the way forward - and as you keep saying you refuse to be complicit in drownings you will surely reconsider this as your favoured example of something that works. Their off-shore processing has also been disastrous for human rights - it shows up the problems in this as a solution too.   

As you seem to follow my replies to others,  you'll have seen that my opinion is that we need international co-operation and safe routes (this is additional and should never mean we abandon rescuing drowning people in our waters). I hadn't seen you mention safe, legal routes but I'm pleasantly surprised that you support them. Priti Patel is bringing forward the Nationality and Borders Bill which will make how people arrive in the UK have a bearing on asylum seeker's claims.  Without safe routes, all ways for refugees to enter the UK are illegal. Patel has designed a policy contrary to international law that criminalises refugees, so I presume you'll be against her bill.

I will accept that maybe your insistence that no-one should be permitted to arrive on our shores for first-time asylum applications is equal opportunities; although you haven't said what you find so terrible about proessing people with dignity in our country, nor that I got anything wrong in summing up the outcome. But you seem to be a clever bloke, so I'm sure that you can see the direct effect of the combinations of your preferred policies upon refugees mean that, the races and nationalities who make up the majority of refugess are kept away by them. Maybe it's an unintended outcome rather than your intentions but not noticing it probably reflects far more badly upon yourself than those who do, particularly when you spend the time patronising, obfuscating and accusing them of all kinds. You can't have it both ways - you continually sneer at anyone who disagrees with you yet no-one is allowed to mention the obvious effect of your ideas (and when they do, imply somehow you've been silenced...)

Anyway, this thread is weeks old now and I feel silly for allowing you and others to drag me back into it. Stay safe

That's a nice use of semantics to avoid the question.

I'll reword it just so there's no misunderstanding...

Do you support the ongoing process of intercepting migrants in the English Channel and bringing them to the UK mainland?

You will need to provide some proof for your assertion that the Australian approach has not reduced drownings.

I've provided several links which assert that it has reduced drownings.

If we accept that the Australian approach has reduced drownings, as all the statistics I have seen suggest, then it follows, logically, that other approaches produce higher rates of drownings.

You can't say there is no proof that the current UK practice increases drownings because that is exactly what the Australian approach proves.

The rest of the Australian policy is irrelevant to this discussion. I have said before I don't wish to emulate any other aspect of their approach apart from the turning back of boats. I would add that the people in the boats should be safely escorted to shore either in their vessel if seaworthy or in an alternative vessel if not.

The geo-political climate is also completely different in this case to that of Australia and Italy. We will not be turning people back to a dangerous country.

I have no problem with people having their asylum claims processed in this country. I merely wish to ensure the safety of those seeking asylum.

The relatively small number of people arriving by boat produce an unacceptably large number of casualties.

The only proven way to stop this is to turn back the boats.

Here's a link which uses language remarkably similar to that used in your post and which concludes that the Australian approach has reduced drownings.

https://theconversation.com/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detenti...

If you look further down the thread I've suggested opening an asylum centre in Europe so people can apply for UK asylum without any need to engage in further risky journeys.

I'm in no way opposed to refugees being granted asylum.

If you ran your own ships you'd still have to vet people before allowing them on board so there'd be no real benefit over just processing their full application before letting them on board.

There was a discussion about this on BBC R4 Today on 10 Sept. It starts about 1:51:51. They discussed the particular issue of turning back boats.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000zfdx

Rich_cb wrote:

Ok, given you clearly understand more about maritime law than I do. Please explain, how is it illegal under maritime law to escort a vessel safely to French soil? If you support a system that drowns children then you cannot claim the moral high ground. It is an absolute imperative to find an alternative. Refusing to try is to be complicit in the ongoing deaths.

Read the links.  Or are you content in your ignorance?

The system I support is the best legal approach at the moment.  Your ideas will drown more children as the evidence from Lybia shows.

Please enlighten us as to the efforts you are making in this area to avoid complicity in ongoing deaths  Other than, erm, wittering nonsense on a cycling forum...