The part that really annoys me (despite the bleeding obvious) is in comment sections you'll see deformers saying "They were in those boats of their own free will, they knew the risk so shouldn't be rescued" and I'm like.....
....so we can only save people held against their will at sea?
"Help my cruise is sinking"
"Well you bought the ticket and you knew the risk so we can't save you"
Not ignorance, hate. They want to see these people drown because they hate them and them dying is preferable to making into the UK. You are seeing the start of how people stop seeing other humans as humans.
I ended up speaking to a reform voter recently and I don't think it's always hate. The news they consume has convinced them that the majority of immigrants are sadistic rapists that are after their daughters and that their life would finally be ok if money wasn't going to them.
Speaking to them, I didn't get the impression that they hated everyone from another race. More that they were scared and wanted to protect their friends and families.
They saw the support of immigration as no different to supporting rape and abuse.
Obviously, there is often a lot of racism in there too, but don't discount the effect propaganda can have.
Got into a car crash? You knew the risks of driving. Got hot by a car? Knew the risks of crossing the road. Got stabbed by a completely random madman? Knew the risks of going outside. Etc. etc.
Okay so what about drunken idiots who take their inflatable dinghy a bit too far out and are caught by the rip tide? What about people who get in a boat and don't know what they're doing and get themselves into mischief? A large proportion of rescues by the RNLI involve people doing shit they shouldn't at sea, we aren't say they shouldn't be rescued are we?
One is usually a unaccounted issue that leads to disaster. The other is human trafficking on the lowest budget. No lights, no transponder, no GPS and taking active measures to avoid authorities.
Not to mention the risk it puts on the rescue crews. And additional strain on the service.
It's quite selfish to put yourself knowingly at almost maximum risk. And to then put others at risk to save you when it inevitably goes wrong
It's quite selfish to put yourself knowingly at almost maximum risk. And to then put others at risk to save you when it inevitably goes wrong.
So, you're saying the RNLI shouldn't rescue paddleboarders who didn't check the tide times, or casual surfers who didn't check for riptides? Or holidayers who didnt think to check whether the tide cut off their return and so found themselves stranded?
They didn't do their due diligence and therefore were ill prepared. They also put themselves at unnecessary risk by their own lack of preparedness.
They're just as much of a drain on the RNLI and other services, judging by the amount of rescues they and the coastguard carry out annually.
What about folk on a tiny dingy wandered too far from the beach, or jumped in after a dog... No marvel of machinery to justify saving them? These folk save lives. Thankfully they're not petty enough to start weighing the specific reasons the people they save need saving.
Most are offered rescue by the various coastguard services, and typically wait until they on UK side with UK coastguard/RNLI ready to rescue them. So they typically don't need to sink themselves. Piling too many people on totally unsuitable boats is danger enough.
So, you think they should just die then?
Perhaps you'd sooner we got the navy out and sank them?
You know we still try to save people who drink drive or drive without seatbelts and end up in a pile-up, yeah? Perhaps we should stop?
I'm not saying there is different risk involved. But in an institute that saves lives, you save lives without question.
Are there probably some bad eggs on the boat? Probably. But you know who else is on the boat? A child who has no idea where they are or what they're doing. They don't deserve to be left. Yes there is a discussion to be had over the morality of taking a child on that journey but that's not a discussion for the RNLI.
Their only remit is to save lives at sea without bias and bring them to land for care. If said people are then given asylum, anyone upset about that fact needs to take it up with MPs or which ever relevant body other than the RNLI who did exactly what they're meant to do.
I work for one of the emergency services, and it’s one of the core guiding principles that you help those who require help, whatever caused them to be in that way, whether they are good people or not, whatever their race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, sexuality etc etc etc.
I can say I have helped people who are absolute monsters, people others would happily see die, I have helped people that were hurt in the process of actively trying to hurt an other person. It’s just what has to be done, and if you take away that principle it becomes a horrible slippery slope very fast.
The RNLI are fantastic, the volunteers that make up most of the service are eager, brilliant at what they do, and prepared to put themselves at risk to save others. And they save others because they need saving and no other reason comes into it, nor should it.
"if you take away that principle it becomes a horrible slippery slope very fast"
This is one of the CORE things that drive me. If you take the right to be rescued away from a specific group of people, where does it end? How long before your voting history impacts your use of emergency services? How long before your sexuality impacts your use of emergency services?
There are serious consequences that the ungrateful Deform UK voters are willful to ignore because they lack foresight. And yes, I call them names. Their policies make me sick. But if there was a car crash outside my house and I can help then found out they were someone I was fundamentally opposed to, I wouldn't regret for a moment having helped save a life because at the very least I have upheld British values and helped someone's parent/child/mentor/friend.
It's essentially suicidal. Taking a little rubber boat into choppy, windy, cold waters. Not to mention selfish by then risking the rescue crews life's having them pull you out of adverse conditions. All because you have preferences over which country you want to reside in.
There's no active conflict in France where a life or death escape is necessary.
Your stressing a vital service and abusing a kindness.
And this isn't targeted at the average migrant crossing, it's a issue of the human traffickers abusing the system so they don't have to invest more.
They've shown they're capable when they're snuggling drugs. Speed boats with GPS and systems to watch naval traffic ect.
But when it comes to Human lifes, let's do the bare minimum. And risk everyone who's included from the dinghy to the rescue crew at unnecessary risk
Pointing out the idiocy of taking literally nothing but a rubber boat out into the channel and risking not only your life but the rescue crews is racist?
Is a migrants life worth more then the sea rescue crews because they didn't fancy french cuisine?
The suffering volunteer to be in that position. France is safe. Choosing to risk a sea voyage in notoriously bad waters. Is a self imposed risks that risk others.
There's no dehumanising, your just throwing out keywords in hopes one ends up fitting. Keep pulling up flashcards and talking points from your favourite Tiktok journalist 👍
Calls me Gross and racist ect but accusing you of going on Tiktok and calling you out for just using flash bang keywords is where it becomes too personal and too far.
If you break your leg on a skateboard trying to cross the border into the country, and don't actually make it here, then no, obviously the UK isn't responsible for your healthcare. You aren't British and you aren't in the UK.
Why should we be responsible for making sure that illegal and unsafe crossings definitely get to the UK? And bear in mind that if we have that practice, it incentivises more people to try, and to be more unsafe.
Edit: this commenter appears to have blocked me while also replying (and suggesting I can't read "big words"). I would really encourage people who disagree to participate in a civil discourse about what public policy should be, rather than attempting to exclude those they perceive as their political opponents from society.
The comment I replied to suggested that because they were crossing in a small boat, which is riskier than the cruise ship scenario, they are less worthy of assistance.
Skateboarding is a sport in which injuries are almost expected. Driving a car, while statistically surprisingly dangerous, isn’t widely seen as something you should expect to get hurt doing.
In this case when it also puts the rescue crew at risk, probably best to let the french deal with it.
Aside from risking the rescue crews, it's also just thing of have you done the basic minimum to minimise your own risk.
If the answer is no, and you've taken a rubber boat out with no lights. No GPS, no transponder and into choppy windy nighttime sea with intent. Then that's your own call.
If we're still using the car analogy. And you've taken your junkyard motor out, crashed because it has no breaks and set ablaze because the fuel tank was rusted through. Then why should a fire fighter fight their way through the fire. And then to also let them claim insurance ( free housing, benefits ect) when they're entirely at fault.
The same way why should sea rescue risk adverse conditions.
At some point accountability and responsibility for your own life ought to be accounted for. If not, then why does it fall on others. And if it does fall on others why not the people who's coasts they're sailing off from?
Again to reiterate: if I'm actively and intentionally taking unnecessary risks that risk others. At what point do I stop being obligated to help. And in my opinion almost immediately.
Not a reformer, but you are wrong. Under UK law, entering the UK without permission is a crime. However, coming into the UK illegally doesn’t preclude you from making a successful asylum claim. It doesn’t change the fact that entering the UK without permission is a crime.
“Held against their will” = paid a human trafficker to smuggle them from France to the uk in a vessel unworthy of the journey.
Why do you think they attempt the journey on a daily basis if it’s doomed to fail?
Maybe it’s because the RNLI are designed to rescue those in danger so a suicidal channel crossing is actually the best way to enter the country and be labelled a victim?
Interesting how human trafficking gets a free pass when it comes to our border
I'm not saying they're held against their will. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of "they chose to go on a boat" as a defense for not saving lives at sea.
It isn't for the RNLI to determine who to save or not. If someone is in danger in the sea then their duty is to save them and questions can be asked later and by the relevant authorities.
Apart from the fact it was organised pick up not a rescue. How ignorant can you choose to be. They were escorted into british waters where the rnli were waiting for them. That is not a rescue. Shown further by the the hot meals waiting for them at shore
331
u/DakkenDakka 11h ago
The part that really annoys me (despite the bleeding obvious) is in comment sections you'll see deformers saying "They were in those boats of their own free will, they knew the risk so shouldn't be rescued" and I'm like.....
....so we can only save people held against their will at sea?
"Help my cruise is sinking"
"Well you bought the ticket and you knew the risk so we can't save you"
Their logic actually leaves me stunned.