So far, 3 days later, no response from @ukhomeoffice. Assertions that the proposed offence doesn’t cover the RNLI rescuing asylum seekers at sea and landing them safely on shore aren’t any use without an explanation of why that is so. 
Also, note the wording. What about individuals or shipping companies rescuing people in distress at sea? What, exactly, are the boundaries of the conduct to which this offence is said not to apply? What, for example, is meant by “distress” (would overcrowding be enough?)
Before you can answer those questions - important questions given the seriousness of the offence and the need to prevent loss of life at sea - you need to know where the alleged exception comes from and its legal basis.
Unexplained assertions - in a tweet or even by ministers in Parliament - don’t cut it. The answers should be in the text of the legislation. But - as far as I or anyone else can see - they aren’t.
Incidentally, I suspect that the issue of rescue at sea is an oversight.
But, like a Freudian slip, the oversight is revealing. It reveals a tendency to reach for the criminal law while failing properly to think through what the proposed offence (here, of helping asylum seekers reach the UK) should actually catch.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
