When we get someone other than Traffickers prosecuted, I will be very surprised. No action with be taken against the RNLI
The evidence is against you. @chrisstiles has already mentioned prosecutions of people other than people traffickers. The previous version of the legislation has struggled in the court of appeal, for example the case of Fouad Kakaei initially convicted of helping steer a boat across the Channel, which was overturned in March this year. A case could be made that the newest legislation makes an asylum claim illegal if someone enters the UK by such means precisely to sidestep the basis of the appeal, so that more people who are picked up from boats in the Channel are criminalised and sent to prison rather than being treated as the refugees that they are. A case can also be made that under the previous legislation with it's phrase about profit allows appeals against such convictions based on the fact that refugees crossing the Channel in a boat aren't paddling the boat from a profit motive, and by taking that out of the current legislation the government is removing a foreseeable basis of appeal.
People other than traffickers will face prosecution. No doubt about that at all, the wording of the Act makes it clear that this is one of the aims of the legislation. I agree, action against the RNLI will be politically untenable and is a very remote possibility, but actions against other people who help people in need who don't have a much-loved national institution behind them is possible.
When we get someone other than Traffickers prosecuted, I will be very surprised. No action with be taken against the RNLI
The evidence is against you. @chrisstiles has already mentioned prosecutions of people other than people traffickers. The previous version of the legislation has struggled in the court of appeal, for example the case of Fouad Kakaei initially convicted of helping steer a boat across the Channel, which was overturned in March this year. A case could be made that the newest legislation makes an asylum claim illegal if someone enters the UK by such means precisely to sidestep the basis of the appeal, so that more people who are picked up from boats in the Channel are criminalised and sent to prison rather than being treated as the refugees that they are. A case can also be made that under the previous legislation with it's phrase about profit allows appeals against such convictions based on the fact that refugees crossing the Channel in a boat aren't paddling the boat from a profit motive, and by taking that out of the current legislation the government is removing a foreseeable basis of appeal.
People other than traffickers will face prosecution. No doubt about that at all, the wording of the Act makes it clear that this is one of the aims of the legislation. I agree, action against the RNLI will be politically untenable and is a very remote possibility, but actions against other people who help people in need who don't have a much-loved national institution behind them is possible.
@Alan Cresswell explains it as cogently, and as patiently, as usual. If only the Priti Patel Fan Club would take the trouble to read such posts with comprehension.
Telford's about to tell us all that he didn't expect anyone to agree with him, which is his way of not conceding he's wrong despite overwhelming evidence.
Comments
People other than traffickers will face prosecution. No doubt about that at all, the wording of the Act makes it clear that this is one of the aims of the legislation. I agree, action against the RNLI will be politically untenable and is a very remote possibility, but actions against other people who help people in need who don't have a much-loved national institution behind them is possible.
Quite so.
Knitting fog, or herding cats, are comparatively simple exercises.
I do often find it like trying to nail fog to a wall.
Another analogy might be *walking through treacle*, perhaps?
@Alan Cresswell explains it as cogently, and as patiently, as usual. If only the Priti Patel Fan Club would take the trouble to read such posts with comprehension.
Johnson, Patel etc. want it both ways. It's good to see this group of people say no to them.
AFZ
Indeed. There is still some faint hope that, one day, the lunacy will be overcome.