RYA Advice On Assisting or Rescuing Immigrants At Sea

[BlowingOldBoots]

I must admit I am surprised at this advice from the RYA. On reflection though I can see a point, especially if it is designed to raise awareness of bad law that is likely to be badly implemented. Further, there are possible risks to small boats trying to rescue large numbers of people at sea.

The real issue is how has this nation come to this, to stoop so low, where a national governing body feels it must issue advise to leisure sailors to standby and only offer assistance by "reporting it" because of the risk of persecution as a people smuggler. Insanity!

To be clear, the RYA, via Stuart Caruthers, state that "this can't be right" as quoted below. Therefore, the RYA do not support this law and believe that it is wrong and contradicts other rules and regulations.

What do you think?

Stuart Carruthers, the RYA’s cruising manager, said: “Our advice is to be very careful going to the rescue. You are not under any obligation to do it but you are under an obligation to report it and explain why you are standing off. You are not required to put yourself in danger.

“It sounds very harsh, but you could have a massive bureaucratic problem and be tied up in bringing illegal immigrants into the country. Our advice is to stand off and report.” ... “It potentially criminalises people for trying to save life and putting them on a British shore. That can’t be right,” he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/s ... lj90Sdbw0A

Alastair

[Burst Boiler]

Stuart Carruthers says you are not under any obligation to do "it" (rescue people). Really?
There are two potential levels of obligation here: moral and legal. I hope there's no debate needed on here regarding the moral obligation. As for the legal obligation, the MP quoted says there is a legal obligation to go to the rescue under international law. Is he right (subject to not endangering your own ship or crew)?

[BlowingOldBoots]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),and the Safety of Life At Sea (SOLAS) both have similar text. The UK has incorporated both into its maritime laws, as I understand it. The claim in point, is that you could be overwhelmed by the number of persons and as such be at "serious danger to the ship, crew or passengers", hence you can offer assistance and reporting of a Mayday Relay, but you don't actually have to try and rescue. If being overwhelmed was a reasonable risk, I would deploy life raft and dinghy and not allow boarding. Then again, if the majority were comatose, but some weren't, I would make a call on picking up conscious persons in distress. To be frank, who knows what they would do until faced with a situation.

The moral debate is a fair one to have because morality is just a human construct to manage society. When society changes, moral boundaries can change and that is as plain as the nose on the end of your face e.g. rape and murder allegations made against British soldiers, domestic abuse, poverty levels. Where does moral obligation start, at the ballot box, at sea, how you spend your money? Morally you may be better protecting your crew from danger.

A key point that is made, even if rescuing small numbers that you can mange, which I am sure many would feel morally obliged to do, you may be prosecuted based on the draft law. Our Home Secretary has decided that ambiguity and threat of conviction to ordinary citizens is a price worth paying to catch a tiny number of criminals.

Final point, regarding where this government comes from, and why they are dangerous people as far as our liberties are concerned, the RNLI were roundly criticised by many and suffered abuse because they rescued migrants. There are people in this country, and in parliament (todays debate with the Home Secretary, for example) who believe "getting hard" with migrants is the solution. Morals are a charade for some.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),and the Safety of Life At Sea (SOLAS)

“ Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers:
a)to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
b)to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him.”

Vile Abuse of RNLI https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-57999224

[Burst Boiler]

So Carruthers is plainly wrong when he says there is no obligation to do so - it is a requirement in uk maritime law. That's all I was interested in really, whether the RYA actually know what they are talking about.

[BlowingOldBoots]

Burst Boiler, I don’t agree with your understanding. I think what he said could have been better worded. The intent of what he said is correct, and the context can be inferred from what he said about only rescuing a small number.

I have tried to offer context and facts to aid understanding. I don’t think the RYA are wrong. I think they are correct in pointing out that the change in law being proposed risks the skipper and owner being at risk of criminal charges. Is that not something you would want to know? I find it quite shocking that a government would do this. So blame the government for drafting bad law, being ignorant of the unintended causes, ignorant of international obligations that the UK has agreed to and ignorant they have risked any criminal charges and proceedings being made against people traffickers, as they would surely escalate all the way to the high court that they were only rescuing people, as per international obligations.

The Home Secretary confirmed that the change to the law was to avoid people traffickers using it to avoid prosecution. Despite my claims that they are ignorant, that is likely not the case, the wording change is very deliberate and probably made after due diligence was performed and advise given.

It would have been better if he had deferred to an official statement from the RYA that outlined risks and what can be done to minimise risk to a rescuer, especially when numbers of rescued could overwhelm a small boat.

I would be interested in what you would do if you sailed into 40 odd people in distress, in the English Channel on a 35’ boat, with you and a crew of 3 persons?

In Greece a 50’ yacht was impounded and the skipper charged with illegally bringing rescued asylum seekers to shore. Vessels in Italy have been refused entry into harbour post rescue of asylum seekers. Morally upstanding citizens apparently refused to row back to the persons in the water, for fear of being overwhelmed, after the Titanic sank; facts recorded in the testaments of survivors at the inquiry.

Maybe, the RYA are right, don’t risk your boat and own life’s but report it.

Food for thought Burst Boiler, on how leisure sailors may consider appropriate actions.

Alastair

[Burst Boiler]

I'm not going to waste time trying to decipher this essay/incoherent rant. Caruthers says there is no obligation. You, yourself point to the legislation that shows there is. I'm not sure what bit of this you don't understand. Its not a question of being better worded - what he said is incorrect. There is a legal obligation to give aid, subject to not endangering yourself. I'm not arguing about what anyone should/shouldnt do in a hypothetical situation. Just that Carruthers, on behalf of RYA should be clear on the facts, and accurately state them when giving a public statement to the press.

[BlowingOldBoots]

I'm not going to waste time trying to decipher this essay/incoherent rant. Caruthers says there is no obligation. You, yourself point to the legislation that shows there is. I'm not sure what bit of this you don't understand. Its not a question of being better worded - what he said is incorrect. There is a legal obligation to give aid, subject to not endangering yourself. I'm not arguing about what anyone should/shouldnt do in a hypothetical situation. Just that Carruthers, on behalf of RYA should be clear on the facts, and accurately state them when giving a public statement to the press.

Caruthers does not say there is no obligation per se, to rescue, he says there is an obligation to report and that is in keeping with the legislation, for a scenario where the "vessel, crew and passengers" would be at risk. I think it is clear. Your interpretation is wrong and you are also contradicting yourself.

Anyway, thats okay, your view point is just as valid as mine and in my OP I did ask what folks think.

Alastair

[BlowingOldBoots]

Latest comment on this matter from the RYA:-

https://www.rya.org.uk/news/2021/11/25/ ... ct-changes

It was the intention to amend the Bill to ensure that organisations such as the RNLI, those directed by Her Majesty’s Coastguard, and individuals who fulfil their obligations in rescuing those in distress at sea may continue as they do now. At the same time, the Government had to ensure that it did not inadvertently provide loopholes to be exploited by criminal gangs who will look for any means to avoid prosecution.

The amendment will mean that recreational boaters who provide voluntarily assistance to migrants in distress in accordance with the humanitarian spirit of the SOLAS Convention and land them in the UK will not risk criminal liability.

[wully]

Not sure it’s going to be a problem in the Sound of Mull so I’ll not worry about it..

[Burst Boiler]

I would struggle to get a MOB back on board never mind a group of immigrants, so it will not make any practical difference to me either. I just object to the RYA digging its oar in, and claiming to represent recreational sailors while giving ill-considered quotes. I fully accept their remit as administrators of posh white people pratting about in plastic bathtubs at the olympics. I don't accept them speaking on my behalf, especially on a topic that is both high profile and politically contentious. By all means provide private guidance to their members, but don't go yacking to the press without fully considering all angles and giving a very detailed statement including the full context.