Skipper's Duty Towards Refugees

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Not Radioing in is aiding and abetting... both the smuggled and the smugglers...
If they're in the water.. then they are victims of misadventure..
One follows one's conscience...

I can't believe that Not radioing in would be 'aiding and abetting'. 'Aiding and abetting' means your a principle offender, namely guilty of smuggling, I think that's stretching it a bit. Though happy to be enlightened if you can provide the appropriate legislation that supports this 'aiding and abetting'.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I can't believe that Not radioing in would be 'aiding and abetting'. 'Aiding and abetting' means your a principle offender, namely guilty of smuggling, I think that's stretching it a bit. Though happy to be enlightened if you can provide the appropriate legislation that supports this 'aiding and abetting'.

My impression.. and it may be a unique one as I am relatively brainless..
It is illegal to enter any country without using the approved modes of entry and protocols.. regardless of economic or political refugee motivation.. else we'd be accommodating them as guests in hotels not camps..
Therefore if not guilty of wilfully aiding and abetting the commission of an act of illegal entry into the country of dozens/hundreds of Johnny Foreigners by not reporting their presence and your suspicions you could indeed be committing the above offense.. or at the very least an accessory after the fact.

For a successful prosecution, the provision of "aiding and abetting" must be considered alongside the crime itself, although a defendant can be found guilty of aiding and abetting an offense even if the principal is found not guilty of the crime itself. In all cases of aiding and abetting, it must be shown a crime has been committed, but not necessarily who committed it.[3] It is necessary to show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being committed, that he does, through his own act or omission, as he would do if he wished for a criminal venture to succeed.[4] Under this statute, anyone who aids or abets a crime may be charged directly with the crime, as if the charged had carried out the act himself.[5] This is distinct from the concept of being an accessory after the fact, a charge distinct from being a principal.

If not that then at least an accessory after the fact..
But WTF do I know..

[Coops]

As much as anyone else speaking left handed braille Boatie.

Coops.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My impression.. and it may be a unique one as I am relatively brainless..
It is illegal to enter any country without using the approved modes of entry and protocols.. regardless of economic or political refugee motivation.. else we'd be accommodating them as guests in hotels not camps..
Therefore if not guilty of wilfully aiding and abetting the commission of an act of illegal entry into the country of dozens/hundreds of Johnny Foreigners by not reporting their presence and your suspicions you could indeed be committing the above offense.. or at the very least an accessory after the fact.

For a successful prosecution, the provision of "aiding and abetting" must be considered alongside the crime itself, although a defendant can be found guilty of aiding and abetting an offense even if the principal is found not guilty of the crime itself. In all cases of aiding and abetting, it must be shown a crime has been committed, but not necessarily who committed it.[3] It is necessary to show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being committed, that he does, through his own act or omission, as he would do if he wished for a criminal venture to succeed.[4] Under this statute, anyone who aids or abets a crime may be charged directly with the crime, as if the charged had carried out the act himself.[5] This is distinct from the concept of being an accessory after the fact, a charge distinct from being a principal.

If not that then at least an accessory after the fact..
But WTF do I know..

You have successfully copied from a wiki what constitutes 'aiding and abetting', but that's all you have done. You have not linked aiding and abetting the crime of people smuggling by simply failing to report!

In most countries it is not an offence to fail to report any crime (might be in some don't know), let alone smuggling of people. To be truly guilty of aiding and abetting people smuggling, prosecutors would have to prove the passing yachtsman had factual knowledge that smuggling was occurring AND then 'did something' to assist those smugglers, not failed to do something, yet alone fail to report. The only way failing to report would be punishable in this situation is if there is a specific law in place where both the boat and the yachtsman were that specifically makes it an offence to fail to report. Which would be an odd law.

And no, it would not be a 'crime' of being an accessory after the fact. An innocent bystander can't be charged with something they seen but had no part in.

And again, it is NOT illegal and has never been illegal to seek assylum.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You have successfully copied from a wiki what constitutes 'aiding and abetting', but that's all you have done. You have not linked aiding and abetting the crime of people smuggling by simply failing to report!

In most countries it is not an offence to fail to report any crime (might be in some don't know), let alone smuggling of people. To be truly guilty of aiding and abetting people smuggling, prosecutors would have to prove the passing yachtsman had factual knowledge that smuggling was occurring AND then 'did something' to assist those smugglers, not failed to do something, yet alone fail to report. The only way failing to report would be punishable in this situation is if there is a specific law in place where both the boat and the yachtsman were that specifically makes it an offence to fail to report. Which would be an odd law.

And no, it would not be a 'crime' of being an accessory after the fact. An innocent bystander can't be charged with something they seen but had no part in.

And again, it is NOT illegal and has never been illegal to seek assylum.

Then how come I got 180 days in MCTC Colchester for trying to get political asylum in S Africa in 1969...
The stoppage of pay really sucked..

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Then how come I got 180 days in MCTC Colchester for trying to get political asylum in S Africa in 1969...
The stoppage of pay really sucked..

I'd take a guess that they took one look of your mug shot and decided you were an alien.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Then how come I got 180 days in MCTC Colchester for trying to get political asylum in S Africa in 1969...
The stoppage of pay really sucked..

in 1969 south africa had just been chucked out of the commonwealth,for being a facist,racist,apartheid regime,a place that refugees were fleeing"FROM" not to

they probably put you in colchester for your own safety........unless you were attempting to drive to south africa and seek political asylum in a stolen car

[weavis]

Originally Posted by atoll

.unless you were attempting to drive to south africa and seek political asylum in a stolen car

It was a Lambretta scooter.......

[rgscpat]

In a kinder, gentler world, the sighting boat's skipper might use a satphone to call the authorities, who would use aircraft to shadow the presumed smuggling boat, and not have surface craft approach until it was determined that a crime had been committed or the questionable boat was in danger or calling for help, the authorities would have personnel to help the refugees/illegal immigrants ashore safely, humanely determine whether they are eligible to enter the country, and have their police/Coast Guard approach the smuggling boat after the passengers had a chance to get ashore or be rescued.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by atoll

in 1969 south africa had just been chucked out of the commonwealth,for being a facist,racist,apartheid regime,a place that refugees were fleeing"FROM" not to

they probably put you in colchester for your own safety........unless you were attempting to drive to south africa and seek political asylum in a stolen car

Actually my goal was Rhodesia.. I disagreed with the blockade we were running against the Smith Government.. and the pay was real good in Border Control..

[atoll]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Actually my goal was Rhodesia.. I disagreed with the blockade we were running against the Smith Government.. and the pay was real good in Border Control..

they must have confused asylum seeker.......with mercenary

one countrys definition of "terr" might be confused with "freedom fighter" in another lol

[PjotrC]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

There is one wealthy family that made the papers last month, I forget the name, but they've put a large motoryacht into use looking for refugees in need of aid in the Med. They're using their considerable resources to actively aid.

Just to remember : BBC News - The millionaires who rescue people at sea

and a quote from the article:

"When the ship comes across a migrant boat in international waters, the crew will contact the nearest authorities. "We will communicate the position of the boat in distress to the authority and we will wait for what they tell us to do," says Regina. While they wait for instructions, they will use the dinghies to approach the boats, pass over food, water and lifejackets and offer medical assistance - the Phoenix has a paramedic on board and also has a well-equipped medical bay."


But m/y Phoenix is 483 Gross Tons, and has a clear mission.

[jimbunyard]

Might seem redundant or oversimplified, but when I need help I ask for it.

[crazyoldboatguy]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Might seem redundant or oversimplified, but when I need help I ask for it.

And sometimes will get cranky if someone insists on helping when not asked e.g. docking.

if they are in the water I would likely do something. Circumstances would dictate.

[itnem80]

I haven't read all the posts but I'd like to give some context for what's going on in the Med for folks that are not from this area.

These are not refugees, this are simply desperate illegal immigrants trying their luck moving to the rich Europe, like many Mexicans do with the US.

Their strategy is not to get to Europe undetected as people would think, but to get in international water or European waters and then get catch by the CG which has the duty at this point to save them, feed them, bring them ashore in European soil and then...

..then most of these illegal immigrants have no documents, no country, nowhere you can send them back to and Europe is forced to keep them, pretty clever strategy on their side, isn't it?

Reporting them to the GC is what they want, it's the way they get into Europe. From there either legally with temporary authorization which never gets enforced or escaping custody they will start to build their new life.
Guess what career most of them will choose, what's the job you can do if you don't speak the language, haven't gone to any school, and have little to no useful skill...

Don't get me wrong, I feel for them, but this is not the right way to even the field, this just increases the racism in Europe and makes integration for the good immigrants really really hard.

I'm an immigrant myself (from and to another region) and I hate my countrymen who do this illegally, they ruin it for everyone else.