The laws an ass !

[AngleEyes]

Where is the UK breaking International law?

It's very simple. It is against the UN Charter to criminalise refugees who arrive in UK in order to claim asylum. It also breaks UN convention on differentiating the mode of transport.

 

[AngleEyes]

His own defence asked for a ruling on whether he even had a defence, this was not the CPS who "fiddled" him, it was his defence. - again its in the transcript.
He can claim asylum on the boat and when interviewed in the UK - he did neither.

Regarding the PIN - They probably just wanted to check he had Grinder on it, to back up his claim.

Its really sad that the gangs who charge 5k a pop, pay the skipper 200 quid to drive them across the pond. Typical of the low pay, in the commercial skippering business (still more than I used to get per day).

He's not obliged to claim asylum on a boat. That was your original assertion, that he refused to claim asylum, (while he was on a boat). Now you've amended that to "he refused to claim asylum on shore".
When you refer to the transcript, please have the courtesy to highlight the passage to which you have referred, and provide the paragraph number, so that your interpretation of the transcript can be verified.
I don't intend to read through the transcript every time you refer to it, with your persistent claims that "it's in the transcript".
That is why the paragraphs are numbered, for ease of reference!

 

[AngleEyes]

Since 1971

It's been continuously amended:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/section/24

 

[motorbiking]

You are double confused here:
- There is no Legal concept of "potential Asylum seeker". You break the law if you arrive in the UK without a right to do so.
- There are many cases of people who have claimed asylum being prosecuted for immigration offences (e.g. false papers).

He's not obliged to claim asylum on a boat. That was your original assertion, that he refused to claim asylum, (while he was on a boat). Now you've amended that to "he refused to claim asylum on shore".
When you refer to the transcript, please have the courtesy to highlight the passage to which you have referred, and provide the paragraph number, so that your interpretation of the transcript can be verified.
I don't intend to read through the transcript every time you refer to it, with your persistent claims that "it's in the transcript".
That is why the paragraphs are numbered, for ease of reference!

I don't recall saying he must claim it on the boat, I said he could.
You'd make a terrible lawyer - The thing is, you do have to read the whole document. His defence statement states, he did not make an asylum claim while in the UK and had been repeatedly detained in the UK. see 9 and 11.

It's been continuously amended:
View attachment 255116
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/section/24

Not the bit being referred to, see the handy notes which show which law amended what. The bit being referred to has been in place for over 30 years.

 

[AngleEyes]

Not the bit being referred to, see the handy notes which show which law amended what. The bit being referred to has been in place for over 30 years.

But that law obviously does not encompass asylum seekers. If it did it would be breaking international law for the last 50 years.

 

[AngleEyes]

You are double confused here:
- There is no Legal concept of "potential Asylum seeker". You break the law if you arrive in the UK without a right to do so.

But arriving in UK to claim asylum is not illegal. Therefore no law is broken.
Any refugee arriving in UK without a visa, who then claims asylum was a 'potential asylum seeker'. Of course there is no legal concept of a potential asylum seeker. Just as there is no legal concept of a potential Prime Minister.

- There are many cases of people who have claimed asylum being prosecuted for immigration offences (e.g. false papers).

If they had false papers, they were not genuine asylum seekers.

 

[motorbiking]

The act covers everyone. You are wrong again..

Read this: specifically the section on 25A
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/immigration-organised-facilitation-vehicles-and-boats
and then read this

which is the act that amended the above act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/part/I

The 1951 convention gives rights to Refugees. There is a difference between asylum seeker and refugee.

 

[AngleEyes]

Y
I don't recall saying he must claim it on the boat, I said he could.
You'd make a terrible lawyer - The thing is, you do have to read the whole document. His defence statement states, he did not make an asylum claim while in the UK and had been repeatedly detained in the UK. see 9 and 11.

But your reference to the fact that he didn't implied that he had an obligation to do so, but didn't.

Now, paragraph 9:

9. The background is set out in the appellant's Defence Case Statement:-​

1. 
   "Over the second half of 2019, following the refusal of his asylum claim in Denmark in April 2019, the Appellant, along with other migrants, repeatedly attempted to enter the UK as genuine asylum seekers on numerous occasions including on 24 July, 12 and 29 December 2019 as alleged. He will say that over that period he made near nightly attempts to enter the UK and was routinely detained by the UK and French authorities. He will say that, save for the period when he was detained in the UK, he resided in migrant camps and slept rough in the area of Dunkirk.

1. 
   "With respect to his crossings of the British Channel on 24 July and 29 December 2019, he will say that the crossing was planned and arranged by others and he, like the other migrants aboard, paid agents to be allowed passage on the vessel. He will concede that at some point during the journeys across the Channel he helped to steer the vessel. However, he will say that a number of the occupants of the vessel took turns to steer the vessel at various points during the journey. He will say on the second occasion he initially refused to help steer the boat and was allowed to be a passenger on that basis but eventually did assist when it became clear to him during the crossing that the other passengers could not safely steer the vessel and he became convinced their lives were at risk if he did not assist. He will say he believed all the other passengers on both occasions to be genuine asylum seekers like himself who intended to present themselves to the authorities immediately on disembarkation to claim asylum."

11.
The prosecution evidence showed that on 24 July 2019 the appellant and 26 migrants were stopped by UK Border Force officers as they attempted to cross the British Channel from France in a rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB). The appellant was seen operating the rudder of the vessel. The 26 migrants were undocumented and made applications for asylum immediately after disembarking from the vessel. The appellant was searched and found to be in possession of £210 in cash and a Samsung smart phone. He refused to provide the PIN number for this phone and declined to make an application for asylum. He was subsequently returned to Denmark where a previous application for asylum had been refused.
​

OK, one individual, of the 26 occupants of the boat had made several crossings. He refused to claim asylum in UK, (which makes a mockery of all those claims about all refugees wanting to come to UK), and he was deported back to Denmark.
You see how discussions can be easily resolved when posters provide genuine references to supposed sources, instead of vague comments such as "refer to the transcript" or in others words, "dig a bit deeper".
Etiquette exists for a purpose.

But your argument has swivelled from the false narrative of RNLI providing a taxi service for refugees, now to a discussion whether one boat occupant was a genuine asylum claimant in UK.
That's quite one hell of a swivel.

 

[AngleEyes]

The act covers everyone. You are wrong again..

Read this:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/immigration-organised-facilitation-vehicles-and-boats
and then read this

which is the act that amended the above act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/part/I

The 1951 convention gives rights to Refugees. There is a difference between asylum seeker and refugee.

You see how discussions can be easily resolved when posters provide genuine references to supposed sources, instead of vague comments such as "refer to the transcript", or "read this", or in others words, "dig a bit deeper".
Etiquette exists for a purpose.

 

[AngleEyes]

The 1951 convention gives rights to Refugees. There is a difference between asylum seeker and refugee.

Asylum Seeker, Refugee Or IDP—Do You Know The Difference?

A refugee is someone who must escape one’s current state of living and seek sanctuary in another country.

Asylum seekers are easily confused with “refugees”. Unlike those who have refugee status, asylum seekers flee to a new country where they must prove their need to flee their home.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/de/co...X9EgH8S11VB1maHsQHF0yLfIE0kVIBrQaAn3NEALw_wcB
​

The difference is minimal. A refugee is an asylum seeker on their journey (if that is their intention). Once they have arrived and make an application they become an asylum seeker.

​

 

[motorbiking]

So now that you have started to read everything, I'm keen to understand your thoughts?
- Do you think the chap prosecuted, was breaking the law S25A specifically (i.e. being paid to take asylum seekers and illegal migrants to the UK).
- Do you still think

I strongly suspect any case involving anyone arriving on a beach will similarly be dismissed.

?

 

[AngleEyes]

So now that you have started to read everything, I'm keen to understand your thoughts?
- Do you think the chap prosecuted, was breaking the law S25A specifically (i.e. being paid to take asylum seekers and illegal migrants to the UK).
- Do you still think ?

You are now pursuing your argument about one person being found to have entered UK on a false pretence, to apply universally to all those arriving in UK by dinghy. That's a false narrative and you know it.
It's also a very long way from your original argument about RNLI being used as a taxi service.

 

[motorbiking]

That was a different thread. This is about a likely facilitator (as per 25A) getting off on a possible technicality "The laws an ass". Do you think he was genuine or do you think he got caught ferrying asylum seekers for money and took legal advice?

On the subject of the other thread, what is your considered legal opinion of a commercial skipper (paid person) assisting people he suspect are asylum seekers entering the UK, with reference to S25A routinely?

If a charity paid me to take my boat across to pickup dingy people, knowing they had no leave or right and bring them ashore (UK) - do you think I'd be safe, legally?

I'm commercially endorsed, so am allowed to take payment for passage.

 

[motorbiking]

You see how discussions can be easily resolved when posters provide genuine references to supposed sources, instead of vague comments such as "refer to the transcript" or in others words, "dig a bit deeper".
Etiquette exists for a purpose.

Its not my job to educate you, you jump in guns blazing... right wing this.. right wing that.. blah blah.. and you don't have the courtesy to check if the person posting actually has a valid argument. You immediately jumped to the defence of the individuals released and assumed that anyone who posted information to suggest all was not as per the media headline, had some sort of xenophobic right wing agenda. You see conspiracy everywhere and it serves you no purpose. Sometimes, you need to explore the detail and get your head in the mind of your opponent. You will never convince anyone if your first stance is to accuse.

 

[Notch7]

There is a difference between asylum seeker and refugee

yes a refugee arrives in the UK and claims asylum.

then that person is an asylum seeker