Brexit thread - what happens next

Status
Not open for further replies.
[TW]Fox;29737990 said:
And the answer is 'the ferry company'.



You don't buy return tickets usually on cross channel ferries. You buy singles. Illegal migrants are unlikely to be in possession of return ferry tickets.



So in reality, the carrier has to pay. These people are not going to go 'No worries, single to Calais please' are they?



And they will not pay, so its highly relevant!
Click to expand...

you just don't read posts properly... you first try to correct something that doesn't need correcting (and which you kind of knew since you decided to only quote part of the reply) then you try to answer a different question.

fact is my reply to the other posters statement about airlines was correct...

As for Ferries it isn't clear if the same rules will apply! However the assumption that these migrants have no cash is n't always correct.
 
stewski said:
He's been doing that throughout his tenure.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's fair. If what you said was true, then why did the Tories win the 2015 election? Your argument would seem with democracy. Like most PM's they have their ups and downs. Cameron became PM at a time when the economy was imploding, and the Coalition managed some of the economic challenges with success. In the end, however, a degree of arrogance and lack of medium to long term planning seems to have got the better of Cameron.
 
dowie said:
you just don't read posts properly... you first try to correct something that doesn't need correcting (and which you kind of knew since you decided to only quote part of the reply) then you try to answer a different question

fact is my reply to the other posters statement about airlines was correct...
Click to expand...

This is getting silly really. I quoted the bit that was relevant to my reply, I'm not going to quote your entire post and then reply to only part of it. I'll quote it now, though, for the purposes of clarification..

if they can't pay then it is down to the carrier...
Click to expand...

The order is wrong - it's down to the carrier first. The carrier assumes responsibility. They pay/transport/whatever. What they do later - be that recharge the passenger or whatever - is outside of the scope of the convention and is between them and the passenger.

It's like the Road Traffic Act - it states an insurer must pay out to a third party in the event of an accident that's the liability of it's client. However many insurers state they reserve the right to claim the cost of doing this if the accident was a result of drink or drugs. Does this mean that 'the driver has the liability, not the insurance company, if they crash into somebody whilst drunk'? No, it doesn't - liability is with the insurer. What happens next is a civil issue between insurer and policyholder. Exactly the same principle as that between the government, the airline and the passenger in the case of denied admission.

Which for the type of passenger we are talking about is hugely relevant! Basically, the migrants won't pay for their removal.

The whole point here is demonstrating that the carriers have an incentive to prevent these people boarding their ferries, planes or trains - paid ticket or otherwise - and therefore dismissing the silly claim that the entire Jungle will move to kent.

As for Ferries it isn't clear if the same rules will apply! However the assumption that these migrants have no cash is n't always correct.
Click to expand...

They are not going to pay a bill a ferry company sends them after they had to carry them back. It's ridiculous to even suggest it - it won't happen.

Where does the invoice go? :D
 
Last edited:
wildman said:
yep, they will be mighty disappointed when they realise those boats won't be leaving Dover full of "foreigners" they voted to be "sent home". Then we will see the true nature of their views come screaming to the surface.
Click to expand...

Marnie_3.jpg
 
[TW]Fox;29738043 said:
This is getting silly really. I quoted the bit that was relevant to my reply, I'm not going to quote your entire post and then reply to only part of it. I'll quote it now, though, for the purposes of clarification..
Click to expand...

jeeze... that isn't wrong - if you get turned away from an airport and you have no return ticket then you're going to be asked to pay and under the T&Cs you're responsible for that... simples

and yes you didn't quote the whole post because it actually covered the fact the carrier has to return the passenger even if they can't pay

there was nothing that needed correcting, you simply chose to talk about legal obligations etc.. but you didn't read the question or the replies properly... the rest of your post then waffles on again about this legal obligation stuff which is pointless as again you're not paying attention to what was stated in the first place.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
jeeze... that isn't wrong - if you get turned away from an airport and you have no return ticket then you're going to be asked to pay... simples
Click to expand...

You'll be transported home - at somebody elses expense - and then subsequently MIGHT be asked to pay. It isn't the same thing at all. The way you put it implies that the passenger will pay. The way it actually works is that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, depending on all sorts of variables, almost of all of which mean...

....the Jungle residents won't pay. It might sound like I'm being picky for the sake of it but it's critically important - the fact it's the operator that has the legal obligation means they take steps to avoid it happening. If all that ever happened was they got paid for a flight home then such incentive would be far less! THAT is why I took issue at your wording - if they got paid regardless it be a nice moneyspinner even :D

We are going round in circles now so let's just agree that there exists an incentive to the operators not to transport everyone from the jungle to the UK and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
there was nothing to correct in the first place... if you manage to end up in say the US and get turned around at the border with no means of getting home you're going to be asked to pay for a ticket....

you can waffle on about legalities etc.. all you like but you, as the passenger, are responsible under the T&Cs to pay for it.

I know full well most residents of the jungle camp won't be able to pay
 
dowie said:
Yup, I've got more respect for him than any other politician on the leave side. Could probably do with him becoming an MP and serving in government going forwards...

these are the sort of speeches/arguments that should have had more prominence in the media instead headlines are focused more on Farage's latest poster or comment

Click to expand...

This sums up the major reasons I voted leave. We will be a lot better off once we are able to trade freely with other nations. I knew large corporations were very supportive because the EU creates a big barrier to entry for competition. This gives customers a bad deal. A bloated inefficient bureaucracy. Closer union would have been devastating to the richer nations. We would have just moved further to becoming an inefficient indecisive mess that cost a lot of money.

We are going to be a terrifying prospect for the EU now as we are very aggressive on making our economy work. We are already hearing today that business taxes are going to be dropped to 15%
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom