The RNLI

[bluethrunthru]

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

The proper answer is save people and obey the law, but that’s not on the list.

In fact the question poses a kind of Farage-style trap where the only answer to an issue is an extreme one. Saving people at sea in UK waters doesn’t breach any law, so to suggest the alternative courses of action are either illegality or the death of innocents is a nonsense.

The current situation of a charitably funded largely volunteer organisation having to try save increasing numbers at sea will lead to deaths sooner or later. The question shouldn’t be whether we let that situation continue or not, but how we stop it. However, that’s a practical question, so I don’t expect any answer to it as this is a complex real world issue not a false black and white moral debate.

charitably funded means it can maintain its "services" - charity is what we do well - think Red Nose Day, Children in Need, the Poppy Appeal...... were it centrally Govt funded how many RNLI lifeboat stations would have been closed in the name of austerity? Do you not think Patel would have maintained that as a Govt dept ( which is what it would have become ) that the right thing to do is NOT save certain types of people crossing the channel? You do realise that there are RNLI stations in NI and the RoI? Throw Brexit into that mix and think how the UK Govt trying to manipulate life saving services there !!??

This lot have closed plenty of Coastguard Stations in the last 11 years in the name of "progress" - charitably funded is not outdated its the only way we can ensure the RNLI continues and continues to be run by professionals.

 

[Chris B]

charitably funded means it can maintain its "services" - charity is what we do well - think Red Nose Day, Children in Need, the Poppy Appeal...... were it centrally Govt funded how many RNLI lifeboat stations would have been closed in the name of austerity? Do you not think Patel would have maintained that as a Govt dept ( which is what it would have become ) that the right thing to do is NOT save certain types of people crossing the channel? You do realise that there are RNLI stations in NI and the RoI? Throw Brexit into that mix and think how the UK Govt trying to manipulate life saving services there !!??

This lot have closed plenty of Coastguard Stations in the last 11 years in the name of "progress" - charitably funded is not outdated its the only way we can ensure the RNLI continues and continues to be run by professionals.

I agree, my point wasn’t that there is an issue with charitable funding, and as a long time supporter and frequent visitor to lifeboat stations I was aware of the stations in NI and the RoI, as well as the international work they do.

The reason I mentioned charitable funding was to highlight that this is an organisation with limited financial resources (£200k extra donations don’t go far when the boats cost £3m each, and they still need volunteers to crew them) so it can’t necessarily respond to significant increases in demand for its services.

 

[stonerblue]

I vote for drown, just because this sub is an echo chamber.

Yeah, that'll show us eh?

 

[stonerblue]

I vote for drown, just because this sub is an echo chamber.

Yeah, that'll show us eh?

 

[Vic]

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

The proper answer is save people and obey the law, but that’s not on the list.

In fact the question poses a kind of Farage-style trap where the only answer to an issue is an extreme one. Saving people at sea in UK waters doesn’t breach any law, so to suggest the alternative courses of action are either illegality or the death of innocents is a nonsense.

The current situation of a charitably funded largely volunteer organisation having to try save increasing numbers at sea will lead to deaths sooner or later. The question shouldn’t be whether we let that situation continue or not, but how we stop it. However, that’s a practical question, so I don’t expect any answer to it as this is a complex real world issue not a false black and white moral debate.

I assume you're aware of the plan to remove "and for gain" from the law which would make helping migrants a criminal offence for anyone, not just people smugglers.

"I was obeying the law of the sea" might be a defence but it would still be an offence in law.

Actually, given our donations to the RNLI you could argue they are now rescuing people for gain!

 

[bluethrunthru]

I assume you're aware of the plan to remove "and for gain" from the law which would make helping migrants a criminal offence for anyone, not just people smugglers.

"I was obeying the law of the sea" might be a defence but it would still be an offence in law.

Actually, given our donations to the RNLI you could argue they are now rescuing people for gain!

Ha ha ha ha - looking forward to the clogged courts system dealing with those millions of incitement to and accomplice to cases forth coming

 

[Chris B]

I assume you're aware of the plan to remove "and for gain" from the law which would make helping migrants a criminal offence for anyone, not just people smugglers.

"I was obeying the law of the sea" might be a defence but it would still be an offence in law.

Actually, given our donations to the RNLI you could argue they are now rescuing people for gain!

I don’t think that is the intention of the law (the government have said it is not), and it’s not been passed in its current form yet. It’s also not clear if delivering rescued people to border control at Dover would in anyway breach the law as they’ve not arrived in the UK under the law at that point.

Certainly there’s a lot of hysteria about this but ultimately even if passed in its current form it wouldn’t make the UK law any tougher than the law as applied in Italy or other parts of the EU, which are hardly seen as unacceptably draconian and unwelcoming nations.

 

[Vic]

I don’t think that is the intention of the law (the government have said it is not), and it’s not been passed in its current form yet. It’s also not clear if delivering rescued people to border control at Dover would in anyway breach the law as they’ve not arrived in the UK under the law at that point.

Certainly there’s a lot of hysteria about this but ultimately even if passed in its current form it wouldn’t make the UK law any tougher than the law as applied in Italy or other parts of the EU, which are hardly seen as unacceptably draconian and unwelcoming nations.

"The government have said it is not".

That's the flaw in that argument.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

An Interesting read. Supports a lot of what people having been saying on this thread.

The Nationality and Borders Bill 2021: first impressions - Free Movement

The much-hyped Nationality and Borders Bill is here. It mainly addresses asylum issues but there are some nationality provisions included as well, which we

www.freemovement.org.uk

 

[Phil Mitchell Foden]

Yeah, that'll show us eh?

I like to go against the grain, what can I say.