A fairly predictable diatribe, where you claim to be a political neutral. But you're not are you. Don't insult my intelligence. Heard others try the same, but they are usually people who lack the courage of your convictions. Its rather ironic after you claim you ascribe to no particular belief system, you are demanding to investigate my beliefs. Obviously this topic is not the place to fully go into all kids of beliefs; for instance, on Germany, I agree with Margaret Thatcher in that West and East should never have been unified in 1990. Yes to the Berlin wall coming down, and the East German people having some control of their own destiny, but no, at least to the timing, of the rest. Recent events back that view. The people I block are people who can't put together a coherent rebuttal without petty insult. In the UK, we literally don't have Freedom of Speech. We have Freedom of Expression. What that means is I have the right to freely express views without government interference. But you don't have the Right to be Heard; no one is obliged to broadcast the views of a crackpot if they don't want to. I don't have to read what you post, and vice versa. On this topic. I believe Daniel Thomas is a stupid man. He is the son of relatively wealthy parents who had the means to give him a fully private education, which we are told provides advantages in life. He had the best start in life, in 20th Century Britain. But at age 37, where was he, standing in the dock, yet again, 5 kids and another on the way, and a magistrate describing him as "of no fixed abode". Not really amounting to much. Hence his reported emotional response to the charges being read out. After his previous conviction, he claims to have repented, and become a committed "Christian", without saying what sort of Christian. I believe this is a sham. At the very least, he has been selective in his readings of the Bible. But many Christians (and adherents to other religions) can be pretty selective in what they take from their religious texts, its why there is a Protestant church, which isn't actually a church at all). As a father, I believe his first biological priority is to his brood, to support them, like his parents did for him (and why I label them as wealthy, actually, they might not have, and they might have gone through considerable sacrifices to give him opportunities they never had). I don't know everything about his beliefs; he believed at one time it was ok to deal in hard drugs, hence his conviction for a violent crime. And lets not forget he was a mature 27 year old at the time, former Army (for a short while) and with a trade, not some naive kid who was lead. People believe he has paid his dues. I believe he still owes society. I believe his becoming involved in stunts that may result in a loss of liberty and likely financial penalty is not in the interests of the welfare of his children. Currently he believes that there should be, probably, severe curtailments, on immigration, and illegal immigration. That is clear. maybe it is something he feels passionate about, for the sake of his kids, on the basis of dangers in society, career prospects, changing culture and so forth. We could forensically address those beliefs, to see which contain well placed fears, and which are not. For instance; culture, his culture is not the same as his dad's, and not the same as his grandparent's, eg the cocaine thing, children out of wedlock, the Nomme de Guerre affectation. He arranges a protest around Dover, blocking holiday makers travelling to France, to protest people come from France. I believe this was, in effect, an act of terrorism, designed to intimidate and terrify women and children, by instructing his followers to stand in the road, in all black clothing, wearing balaclavas, silently, while staring down at drivers. I believe someone will try and rebut this by citing some other protest as a classic act of Stalinist whataboutism. He follows that up by standing around upto his waist in cold water at Plympton Beach, where first responders handed out foil blankets to protestors to stop them becoming hypothermic. Perhaps it showed he was committed. I believe this was an idiotic stunt, and that perhaps he should be committed. Would have helped if he sank to his knees in the mud and started singing some Christian protest songs. But he didn't. He livestreamed instead, because its content.. The incident got into the news, but actually didn't make any difference. Then to this latest stunt. He's not a boatman. I believe that he knows nothing of the sea, already sank a boat without leaving the dock. What on earth was he thinking when he planned to slash an empty boat. There have been statements that the person aboard was a French NGO. That is not true. Here is the rough chain of events. An inflatable was located, mid channel, possibly UK waters, drifting. The 50 aboard were taken off by RNLI lifeboat members, and transferred to a UK Border Force vessel in the vicinity. By some sources, the Frenchmen is described as a member of the French coastguard from the vessel Abeille Liberté. That's not exactly the case. The Abeille Liberté is an Emergency salvage tug, privately owned but under contract to the French government. It had been shadowing the RHIB. The crew are French merchantmen. What they do is recover and tow vessels that are adrift in what is probably the busiest seaway in the world. In fact you see the salvage tug in the background. The crewman boards the boat, just before Thomas starts shouting, claiming he is in UK territorial waters. He calls the Frenchmen traitors for taking the boat back to France. What we can see is the crewman motioning towards the outboard, which is in the water, I would assume to take it out of the water as their tenders secure a line for towing The RNLI do not salvage vessels. That is outside of their remit. The UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) does not maintain dedicated ETVs in the English Channel. The UK withdrew its Channel-based emergency tugs (such as the Anglian Monarch) to save public funds, operating under the philosophy that ship owners should contract commercial tugs in an emergency. The UK's only state-funded ETV is positioned far north in the Orkney Islands. In emergencies, the UK relies on the Coastguard Agreement on Salvage and Towage to temporarily task commercial vessels. Conversely, France strictly maintains dedicated emergency towage assets based out of northern ports like Calais and Dunkirk to immediately respond to maritime hazards and environmental threats in the Dover Strait. But to complicate things, the British also treat abandoned RHIBS as crime scenes. There are no salvage rights; if you find one of these washed up on a beach, you haven't got yourself a free outboard. I believe he was, thoughtlessly, interfering with a crime scene. I believe the French rescue tug is tasked to remove obstacles from the English Channel, to reduce hazard to shipping. The boat was intended to end up with the French Gendarmerie. In the UK, if such boats are recovered, they are, after forensic examination, examined for seaworthiness. Most are not seaworthy, and are destroyed. Some will have some value, and the British will auction these. In France, the French do not auction off such boats. Most are worthless, and destroyed. The few that are worth anything are redistributed to the SNSM (the French version of the RNLI) or to sailing clubs. I believe Thomas, because he is a stupid man approaching middle age, has spent too much time on Facebook, Tiktok, Telegram and other sites, and believed the RHIBs were being returned to migrant gangs. This is utter tosh. I believe by slashing at the boat, Thomas would have not been able to sink it, but if anything, increased the risk to shipping, because now it can't be towed so easily. I believe the act of partially deflating the boat created a hazard, and therefore increased risk (Risk is calculated using the core formula Risk = Probability × Severity, combining the likelihood that a hazard will cause harm with the seriousness of that outcome). The most severe consequence of an accident at sea is death by drowning. Whenever you go into the water, it is always possible you won't come out alive (humans are fairly incompatible with water). You can mitigate against that by learning to swim. But you might fall unconscious. You mitigate against that with a buoyancy aid etc. The action of Thomas could have resulted in the death of the French crewman. Endangerment offences generally criminalise conduct because of the danger or risk created by that conduct; actual harm is not necessarily an element. The precise level of danger or likelihood that must be proved depends on the wording of the particular offence. "But no one was hurt" is not a defence. The prosecution doesn't have to prove the outcome; it has to prove the legally defined dangerous consequence of the defendant's act. The outcome can therefore be zero injuries, while the offence can still be complete. Case law indicates adding an Endangerment charge wouldn't produce a longer sentence and would increase the chances of a mistrial. When the crewman boards the craft, he is following a risk assessed process. The risk assessment doesn't include some nutter slashing at the boat while you are doing your job. We see that the crewman is wearing PPE; hardhat, high viz, buoyancy aid, possibly a dry suit. I believe they will now need to change their procedures, instead of being super relaxed about an approaching craft, they will need to establish a cordon sanitaire. Interesting that you describe yourself as a German brought up in the US. I have no idea if that's true or not, but assuming it is, then you will know all about OHSA. OHSA is the equivalent to the UK's HSE, only it has a pretty <deleted> track record of enforcing safety legislation, evidenced by the poor industrial accidents compared to the rest of the civilized world, which might explain your apparent lack of awareness about hazard. In the US, the rate of fatal industrial accidents is 3.3 per 100,000 FTE. A meaningless number until compared with others. In the UK, its 0.4. Germany-0-8-1. Americans ought to be upset about this. Their workplaces aren't safe places to be. My experience with OHSA inspectors is this is largely down to an incompetence in the inspectorate, and a high tolerance in the US for unacceptable practices. FYI, I have been a biological safety officer advising the board of a Plc. I believe this idiotic act will inspire others. I believe someone will get hurt for no reason whatsoever. I believe Thomas will financially benefit from the stunt. I believe the reason he has not been charged with Endangerment is a combination of case complexity but also an element of the mob intimidating the civil service. I believe such behaviour is the antithesis of the British character, which is to be reasonable. I believe such behaviour has been imported from other cultures, where there is a history of thuggishness, such as Germany or Russia. I believe it is this behaviour that is really the threat to Europe. I believe it is being promoted by Russia. Some Russian jokes: Fundamentally, I believe Western societies have been distressed since the financial events of 2008-2010, where those who caused a financial crash through corruption and greed were protected and even rewarded. I believe this caused confusion and disdain in society. Brexit, immigrants, BoJo, Farage, Tommy Robinson are symptoms. I believe it significantly eroded trust in institutions. I believe it opened the door to political snake oil salesman who will be the ruin of us all. I believe Russia was impacted by the crisis, but in a different way. I believe Russia is supercharging, milking the outcomes, not as a means of raising Russia up, but bringing us all down. Today, I was out an about in my home town in Southern England. Some new bits of graffiti in the local multistory. Interestingly "Motley Crue" and "Shout at the Devil". Followed by "<deleted> ICE" and "MAGA!". WTF has been unleashed. This is England. People think its all about immigrants. Nah, its much bigger than that. That's a side show, with useful idiots like Daniel Thomas.
Create an account or sign in to comment