[calvin plummers socks]

 dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 08:42 AM, said:

I repeat....
What's needed is direct action by Kent County Council, controlled by Reform. They should make Starmer sxxt himself.

Kent County Council??
They deal with bins and potholes (really badly as it goes) - they have nothing to do with boats - wow

[dim view]

calvin plummers socks, on 12 May 2025 - 09:09 AM, said:

Kent County Council??
They deal with bins and potholes (really badly as it goes) - they have nothing to do with boats - wow

Just cos I repeat, it doesn't mean you have to.

Kent County Council
Council-wide responsibilities
We have a responsibility to:

seek to improve the lives of all residents in Kent and economy of Kent
act as corporate parent to the council’s looked after children
take an active role in promoting and ensuring the council’s responsibilities for safeguarding are met.
.......

Introduction
This document represents the shared vision of Pas-de-Calais Council and Kent County Council for the
maritime and coastal area known as Dover Strait or Pas de Calais. It presents a strategic guideline on
how that vision may be achieved, through committed joint actions. It has been drawn together based
upon experience and knowledge at the local level, combined with exploration of cross border
management of straits from across Europe...........

[Burgerman]

dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 09:49 AM, said:

Just cos I repeat, it doesn't mean you have to.

Kent County Council
Council-wide responsibilities
We have a responsibility to:

seek to improve the lives of all residents in Kent and economy of Kent
act as corporate parent to the council’s looked after children
take an active role in promoting and ensuring the council’s responsibilities for safeguarding are met.
.......

Introduction
This document represents the shared vision of Pas-de-Calais Council and Kent County Council for the
maritime and coastal area known as Dover Strait or Pas de Calais. It presents a strategic guideline on
how that vision may be achieved, through committed joint actions. It has been drawn together based
upon experience and knowledge at the local level, combined with exploration of cross border
management of straits from across Europe...........

This could be the single most effective council in the country after having wiped out the Tories. The have enough punch to give this government a black eye and my guess is they will.

[Burgerman]

calvin plummers socks, on 12 May 2025 - 09:09 AM, said:

Kent County Council??
They deal with bins and potholes (really badly as it goes) - they have nothing to do with boats - wow

You're correct, they do but I'm surprised you think that's all they have responsibility for. What about Social Care, Education, Child social care, community grants, Leisure and the Dover Straits as mentioned above, the list goes on and on. Why do you think they don't have the same responsibilities as any other County Council?

[dim view]

Burgerman, on 12 May 2025 - 10:05 AM, said:

You're correct, they do but I'm surprised you think that's all they have responsibility for. What about Social Care, Education, Child social care, community grants, Leisure and the Dover Straits as mentioned above, the list goes on and on. Why do you think they don't have the same responsibilities as any other County Council?

His history is that he doesn't like debate. He's a Statement man. Wow.

[calvin plummers socks]

 dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 10:08 AM, said:

His history is that he doesn't like debate. He's a Statement man. Wow.

Not a lot to debate though!
Some great talking by Starmer this morning - already doing more to sort out immigration in a few months with some proper adult planning than all those years of the previous regime

[Goku]

Burgerman, on 12 May 2025 - 10:05 AM, said:

You're correct, they do but I'm surprised you think that's all they have responsibility for. What about Social Care, Education, Child social care, community grants, Leisure and the Dover Straits as mentioned above, the list goes on and on. Why do you think they don't have the same responsibilities as any other County Council?

Why are you expecting him to write out every single thing a council is responsible for when he is clearly making a general point about councils not being responsible for direct action in relation to small boats?

[Misnomer]

 calvin plummers socks, on 12 May 2025 - 10:11 AM, said:

Not a lot to debate though!
Some great talking by Starmer this morning - already doing more to sort out immigration in a few months with some proper adult planning than all those years of the previous regime

Is he - what's he doing 'to sort' it out?

Hello?

This post has been edited by Misnomer: Today, 11:03 AM

[dim view]

Goku, on 12 May 2025 - 10:14 AM, said:

Why are you expecting him to write out every single thing a council is responsible for when he is clearly making a general point about councils not being responsible for direct action in relation to small boats?

That's a very big general point. It could only be made by an expert. Aren't Councils responsible for any direct action? Wow.

[Burgerman]

Goku, on 12 May 2025 - 10:14 AM, said:

Why are you expecting him to write out every single thing a council is responsible for when he is clearly making a general point about councils not being responsible for direct action in relation to small boats?

That's a very big generalisation in my book. I read it as he believes that County Councils have very little responsibility apart from minor things.

I can see where you're going now

[calvin plummers socks]

 dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 10:29 AM, said:

That's a very big general point. It could only be made by an expert. Aren't Councils responsible for any direct action? Wow.

It’s not difficult - Kent County Council have no jurisdiction on the borders of Kent.
Government / Police / Forces / Border Force / HM Customs and Excise.

Not some chancer in a cheap suit with a Reform rosette

[dim view]

calvin plummers socks, on 12 May 2025 - 10:45 AM, said:

It’s not difficult - Kent County Council have no jurisdiction on the borders of Kent.
Government / Police / Forces / Border Force / HM Customs and Excise.

Not some chancer in a cheap suit with a Reform rosette

Why do you think people voted him in?
Do you think they will settle for him having no jurisdiction in dealing with illegal immigrants?
Should he ensure that the 'shared vision with Calais' document gets updated? After all, it's a KCC document.

[calvin plummers socks]

 dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 11:01 AM, said:

Why do you think people voted him in?
Do you think they will settle for him having no jurisdiction in dealing with illegal immigrants?
Should he ensure that the 'shared vision with Calais' document gets updated? After all, it's a KCC document.

Well it wasn’t to directly sort out small boats arriving in Kent was it?

[dim view]

calvin plummers socks, on 12 May 2025 - 11:07 AM, said:

Well it wasn’t to directly sort out small boats arriving in Kent was it?

You've subliminally accepted that it needs sorting out then.

So what would your reaction be if KCC upped and towed back a full boat tomorrow morning?
There's a post on this topic which suggests that it might not be illegal.

[calvin plummers socks]

 dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 11:17 AM, said:

You've subliminally accepted that it needs sorting out then.

So what would your reaction be if KCC upped and towed back a full boat tomorrow morning?
There's a post on this topic which suggests that it might not be illegal.

Of course it needs sorting. No one is saying otherwise.

And that’s just stupidity.

[dim view]

calvin plummers socks, on 12 May 2025 - 11:25 AM, said:

And that’s just stupidity.

Why?
Because it would upset the French?

Tell us why it's stupid. It's the stated policy of Reform.

[calvin plummers socks]

 dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 12:02 PM, said:

Why?
Because it would upset the French?

Tell us why it's stupid. It's the stated policy of Reform.

Why is it stupid?
You don’t think the concept of Kent County Council staff intercepting a boat and turning it round back to France?
Who would do it? Bin men? Enforcement officers once they’ve sorted out the dog dirt down Faversham High Street? Mary the lady who does the civil partnerships? Tony the licensing Officer?

Come on

[Goku]

dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 11:17 AM, said:

You've subliminally accepted that it needs sorting out then.

So what would your reaction be if KCC upped and towed back a full boat tomorrow morning?
There's a post on this topic which suggests that it might not be illegal.

It would violate UK and international law because KCC has no jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or maritime operations. Returning asylum seekers to a country without assessing their claim would also likely breach the non-refoulement principle (article 33) of the 1950 refugee convention. For clarity, article 33 is:

No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

I asked ChatGPT why that would be a problem given a refugee is unlikely to face threats about their race, religion, nationality etc in France and it says that non-refoulement includes indirect return - so if they were to be towed back to France who then sent them back to Syria, for example, then that is still a breach of the article and the European Court of Human Rights has apparently clarified that this is the case. Additionally, under both UK and international law, each asylum seeker must have their claim fairly considered before removal and towing them back at sea bypasses this process entirely. Collective expulsion is also prohibited, even if it's to a safe country. It would also be violate international maritime law as we can't tow boats back to French territorial waters without their permission and it'd amount to unlawful expulsion or even potentially a hostile act.

[calvin plummers socks]

 Goku, on 12 May 2025 - 12:23 PM, said:

It would violate UK and international law because KCC has no jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or maritime operations. Returning asylum seekers to a country without assessing their claim would also likely breach the non-refoulement principle (article 33) of the 1950 refugee convention. For clarity, article 33 is:

No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

I asked ChatGPT why that would be a problem given a refugee is unlikely to face threats about their race, religion, nationality etc in France and it says that non-refoulement includes indirect return - so if they were to be towed back to France who then sent them back to Syria, for example, then that is still a breach of the article and the European Court of Human Rights has apparently clarified that this is the case. Additionally, under both UK and international law, each asylum seeker must have their claim fairly considered before removal and towing them back at sea bypasses this process entirely. Collective expulsion is also prohibited, even if it's to a safe country. It would also be violate international maritime law as we can't tow boats back to French territorial waters without their permission and it'd amount to unlawful expulsion or even potentially a hostile act.

Yeah but Terry the plumber who has just become a councillor’cos he hates Muslims says he’s gonna sort it

[dim view]

Goku, on 12 May 2025 - 12:23 PM, said:

It would violate UK and international law because KCC has no jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or maritime operations. Returning asylum seekers to a country without assessing their claim would also likely breach the non-refoulement principle (article 33) of the 1950 refugee convention. For clarity, article 33 is:

No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

I asked ChatGPT why that would be a problem given a refugee is unlikely to face threats about their race, religion, nationality etc in France and it says that non-refoulement includes indirect return - so if they were to be towed back to France who then sent them back to Syria, for example, then that is still a breach of the article and the European Court of Human Rights has apparently clarified that this is the case. Additionally, under both UK and international law, each asylum seeker must have their claim fairly considered before removal and towing them back at sea bypasses this process entirely. Collective expulsion is also prohibited, even if it's to a safe country. It would also be violate international maritime law as we can't tow boats back to French territorial waters without their permission and it'd amount to unlawful expulsion or even potentially a hostile act.

Hmmm. Interesting.
That implies that, by the same law, France must have considered and confirmed that they have attained Asylum status in France, having had their claim to be in France fairly considered.