Home › Forums › Chat Forum › Suella! Braverman!
- This topic has 2,564 replies, 241 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by Caher.
-
Suella! Braverman!
-
tjagainFull Member
I reckon Gobuchal’s marine experience is makes him the most qualified to comment here.
for sure – but there is something here that just does not add up
If it didn’t meet the fire regs, nobody would insure it, effectively making it un-insurable.
Is there a differnce between insuring it when unoccupied and when occupied ie the insurance is for 222 people ( the number housed when it was used before) and 550 – the number they want to put on it. So its insurable now but not with 500+ people onboard?
2cookeaaFull MemberNo owner would leave their valuable asset uninsured.
Indeed, the owner’s lovely Barge is no doubt covered for loss or damage while sat there on the dockside, where it’s intended use by the UK Gov is subject to national laws and regulations which are now the responsibility of the home office to meet.
I think what you’re conflating here is the insurance on an asset owned by a private company with the legal/regulatory responsibilities that come when using it to house Asylum seekers.
The owners will have relatively few liabilities here they’ve supplied a barge, they’re apparently renting that asset to idiots, who for some reason didn’t consider regulatory compliance before implementing their clever wheeze…
I’d happily rent my shed to the Home office on a commercial basis, and I’d ensure the contract states it’s on them to ensure it’s safe and legal for their intended use.
The real point is of course that this is very much a Dead Cat intended to drag attention away from Cruella’s Dept. still failing to process Asylum applications or establish the required safe route needed for them to “Stop the boats”.
Boris is gone, we need to stop falling for the remnants of his regime continuing to use his methods to distract from their intransigence and incompetence.
1gobuchulFree MemberThe MCA would have to conduct a “Port State Control” inspection.
It would struggle to do anything if the barge fulfilled it’s Flag State and Class requirements.
Regarding evacuation, there are several companies that can do software simulations and it was a Class requirement that this analysis was performed for cruise ships. My guess is that this would apply to “flotels” as well.If this increase in capacity is outside of the original design specs, then it would be a requirement to perform this again for the larger capacity.
There would have to be a suitable risk assessment and emergency procedure for the evacuation as well.
gobuchulFree MemberThe owners will have relatively few liabilities here they’ve supplied a barge, they’re apparently renting that asset to idiots, who for some reason didn’t consider regulatory compliance before implementing their clever wheeze…
In the marine industry it doesn’t work like that.
You have your Hull and Machinery insurance and your 3rd party, Protection and Indemnity insurance.
Regarding regulations, you have Flag State, Port State and Classification requirements.
You cannot obtain insurance without fulfilling Flag and Classification requirements.
You cannot get a tug to tow you if you don’t have insurance.
The Port won’t let you operate in their harbour without insurance.
The Port State can inspect you and will detain you if you don’t fulfill requirements.
So no insurance then it’s a non starter.
tjagainFull MemberHelp me out here Gobuchal. I am trying to understand
Does the Port State take into account the number of people onboard? I am thinking the prison hulk must have had all certification in place when it was moved to its curent berth but did increasing the capacity mean it needed a new port state assessment or however you put it? If so could that be the cause of the delay in obtaining fire certification? One thing I have seen is that it does not have enough lifejackets on board which would lead me to assume so as thats clearly one thing that would need increasing with an increase in occupancy?
gobuchulFree MemberOK TJ, I will try but it’s quite complex and nuanced, it’s also a while since I did my college times, so some of the detail might have mistakes.
The barge is Registered in Barbados. That is the Flag State. They will have their standards and requirements for manning, safety etc. It’s a Flag of Convenience and although not as bad as some, will be a little more laid back, than the likes of the UK, Canada, Norway etc.
Barbados will not have a large organisation like our MCA to enforce or inspect, so will rely on the Classification Society to check everything, structure, safety equipment, hygiene etc. In fact, nowadays, even the MCA rely on Class most of the time.
This will allow the owners to get suitable insurance to allow them to operate.
the certification is valid for 5 years and a lot can change in that time. Although they usually have a rolling program of inspection over that period.
Now Classification Societies are commercial operations, so aren’t always considered truly independent, so in the 1980’s, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_state_control was brought in. This allows a foreign authority to inspect a ship of a different flag went entering their ports. This is intended ensure standards are maintained as it’s in the port state interest not to have leaky, dangerous ships operating in their waters.
The barge will have a maximum occupancy certificate, which will be issued by Class. This will take into account, liferafts, lifejackets etc. It also will require a minimum amount for space for each person in the cabin. Looking at the photos I can’t see any reason why 2 people would not be allowed to live in those cabins. Any changes would have to be agreed and signed off by class inspectors.
The barge will have a Safety Management System which ties everything together, operating procedures, etc. This would include evacuation and fire fighting. There will be a minimum crewing level as well.
With a “normal” charter, all of these requirements would be contracted in but this is no normal charter!
When operating normally, the barge would have a crew, engineers, catering, cleaning, medic etc. In addition to their routine duties they will emergency roles, fire fighting, liferafts etc. Maybe they have tried to cut back and use cheaper staff which don’t have appropriate training?
Once the barge is tied up in Portland Harbour, it can be inspected by the Port State ie. the UK MCA.
If it has any failings, then they can have enforcement notices placed on them, which could prevent them operating and/or leaving.
The Class for this is covered by Lloyds, generally considered one of the better ones, so you would expect everything to be done above board. However, some vessel owners will try to sneak things past class and make changes without notifying them or getting anything agreed in principle beforehand. This generally pisses them right off and they come down on the owner much harder than if they had engaged with them earlier.
After typing all this down, I now have another possibility, the owners made modifications to increase the capacity to what was contracted for without running it by Class. They are now trying to get certification and Class are not happy, so hence the delay. The pictures of the bunk beds are not what I was expecting to see, they look like something from Ikea, not something you would normally have, which would be fixed onto the bulkhead.
something like this:
It would also explain the MCA haven’t done anything, as they know nothing will happen until they get that sorted, then maybe they will perform their role as the Port State.
Also, as this has been the shonkiest bit of contracting, I bet there is no contractual requirement for certification, just a barge with 500 bunks, so no contractual comeback.
tjagainFull MemberTa.
After typing all this down, I now have another possibility, the owners made modifications to increase the capacity to what was contracted for without running it by Class. They are now trying to get certification and Class are not happy, so hence the delay
that was sort of what I was suggesting. Seems plausible
1NorthwindFull Membergobuchul
Free MemberNot really. “Hear this noise and go this way”.
How is it worse than a hotel?
TBH the best comparison I’m seeing isn’t hotel, it’s student halls… Where you’ve got the culture clashes, the wilful disobedience, the language barriers, the huge variance in life experience and skills. Where a fire alarm causes every reaction from “jump out a 4th floor window” to “have a massive anxiety attack and hide in a cupboard” to “hit your bong a bit harder because the noise is really annoying”. And the population of any room at any moment might be anywhere from 0% to 1000% its normal. It’s always an absolute shitshow even with people who want to be there and who are, to most extents, pretty much just normal kids with normal lives. If you took that same population and dropped it into a hotel or a floating accomodation block you’d get the same sort of absolute chaos, you couldn’t run it like you would with a normal population.
Then multiply that by quite a lot of the unique problems ofprison, and quite a few of the unique problems of a psych ward, which I don’t know anything much about but have got to be considerable. Who wants to be the fire crew that has to go into that, or the fire officer tht has to take responsibility for them? I’m not sure “it’s absolutely safe for its stated job” is really that relevant in the end, when you add in a bunch of people who actively hope it sinks, a bunch of people who’re suffering from PTSD and don’t react well to alarms, a bunch of people who can be counted on to react badly to authority, a whole ton of people who’ve been succesfully dehumanised by the asylum and migration processes…
And yeah it’s not just about the population, it’s also about the people who have to look after them. TLDR, you can definitely make a totally safe thing unsafe just by changing the people who’re in it.
binnersFull MemberThe Guardian have just published this:
Bibby Stockholm asylum barge is ‘potential deathtrap’, say firefighters
But the FBU’s assistant general secretary, Ben Selby, said he is writing to the Home Office about claims of overcrowding and access to fire exits after members raised concerns over safety.
“As the only professional voice, firefighters believe the Bibby Stockholm to be a potential deathtrap,” he told the Guardian
The Home Office are saying the delays in putting asylum seekers on board is nothing to do with fire safety
Well somebody is lying. Hmmmmmmmm… who to believe? The assistant general Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union or Suella Breverman? It’s a tough call.
Has anyone actually seen Cruella of late? She never did like appearing in public, apart from photo ops in Rwanda, but you’d think she might have something to say about all this shenanigans? Apparently not…
FB-ATBFull MemberHear this noise and go this way”.
How is it worse than a hotel?
TBH the best comparison I’m seeing isn’t hotel, it’s student halls…ah, the fun of trying to avoid detection when the fire alarm goes in the female halls!
polyFree MemberGlobuchul, does it actually need MCA approval to be used as a “Flotel” which isn’t going “to Sea” but is alongside in a harbour. Obviously it needs classification for moving between ports with no passengers on, but I wonder if there’s a grey area when it’s in hotel mode? Having dealt with government depts before it’s quite possible (1) nobody their knows either; (2) they’ve wrongly assumed that because they are the gov that the rules don’t apply to them (or will be applied more leniently).
binnersFull MemberObviously Cruella has gone to ground again, as she always does when theres questions to answer.
Her human shield, ‘Honest Bob’ Jenrick is sounding pretty desperate on the radio this morning, basically implying that the Fire Brigades Union is aiding criminal gangs by opposing them moving asylum seekers immediately onto barges. Something of a bizarre leap of ‘logic’.
He did finish his interview with “if anyone has any better ideas then I’m all ears’
Well heres an idea for you Bob…. instead of spaffing billions on these hair-brained dead cats, why not spend that money on staff and training to actually process their claims, which you’re going to have to do at some point anyway.
gobuchulFree MemberGlobuchul, does it actually need MCA approval to be used as a “Flotel” which isn’t going “to Sea” but is alongside in a harbour.
I don’t know. It seems to have been put into a very grey area. Surprise, surprise.
The fact that the local fire brigade are involved and not the MCA or Lloyds, would suggest it’s not being treated as a “marine” or “offshore” facility.
In my mind, it would of been simpler to keep it in the existing rules that are clearly (relatively) defined but I guess that would mean the occupants would need to have some of the basic certification training.
I guess there is precedent for that, I guess the likes of HMS Belfast don’t have MCA sign off, the Tuxedo Royale/Princess also. At a guess, the port would need to apply for planning permission for a permanent structure?
As I have always said, it’s a ludicrous idea on so many levels and was never going to end well.
Just remember at full capacity, it was going to costing about £1200 per day per person. Yet, even BBC R4 was trotting out the line that they Home Office were trying to save money on hotels, as to why the barge was brought in.
ernielynchFull Member“Housing migrants on barges looks set to be UK immigration policy no matter who you vote for.”
That’s the bad news. The good news is that luckily it will all be the Tories’s fault.
As presumably will be all other failings which might occur after the Tories have lost the next general election.
PoopscoopFull MemberI see Ascension Island is being talked about now. A mere 4,000 mile flight.
Should be cheap…
scotroutesFull MemberA mere 4,000 mile flight.
Fill the barge and tow it 4,000 miles?
2tjagainFull MemberPeople seeking refuge who were ordered to live on a controversial giant barge have been reprieved after legal challenges claimed the vessel was unsafe and unsuitable for traumatised people.
As the first tranche of 15 people were moved on to the Bibby Stockholm in Portland, Dorset, lawyers say they are intervening to halt the transfer of dozens more on to the 220-bedroom vessel.
How predictable. I still bet in never houses anything like 500 people
2PoopscoopFull Member^^ That’s all the Labour backed lefty layers fault according to a statement from the Tories today…
1kelvinFull Member>> Speaking to Sky News, Mr Kinnock said Labour would try to move asylum seekers out of hotels, barges and military camps as “quickly as possible”. <<
I can’t find a quote from Jenerick, the current immigration minister, that matches that.
The good news is that luckily it will all be the Tories’s fault.
Yes, where people are found to be housed when/if a new government comes to office will be the fault of the outgoing government and the months/years of policy and planning and provision that’ll need unpicking. Same goes for the ridiculous scale of the asylum processing backlog. Moving people out from wherever they end up being put between now and the next election won’t happen quickly enough.
That’s all the Labour backed lefty layers fault according to a statement from the Tories today…
>> Home Secretary Suella Braveman accused Sir Keir Starmer in the Sunday Express of trying to “sabotage” the government’s plans with its links to charities and lawyers <<
2dovebikerFull MemberI’m not 100% on this, but in terms of insurance the Government could self-insure on the basis that if shit-happens, it gets Treasury to write a big cheque. This is the way it deals with MoD stuff and probably avoids a lot of the issues highlighted above related to commercial shipping. I expect that there some huge indemnities / get-out clauses for a contractor like Serco to run the place.
1robertajobbFull Member<hr />
Finally ! Someone realises that ‘normal’ rules don’t apply to the Gov (I’m not being sarcy here – I mean really really the Gov have several routes out.
– self insure (as they do for many things)
–declare it a British overseas Territory
– declare it a prison (that changes many rules)
Etc
Remember Remember it’s just an appeasement of the racist Tory Daily Heil and Express purchasing voters and a distraction from the real sh1t the country is in on many other more important levels
(Economy, crap level of state education, inflation, a housing crisis, the NHS wrecked, ill health and poor health outcomes, roads are ****, railways failing, water companies asset stripped and run down whilst still piising 20+ % of the water away before it gets to the intended use, no energy strategy, shit pumped daily into rivers and the seas, etc etc etc.
polyFree MemberFinally ! Someone realises that ‘normal’ rules don’t apply to the Gov (I’m not being sarcy here – I mean really really the Gov have several routes out.
it’s not quite as easy as it it sounds, of course they could try to pass new legislation to exempt themselves from various regulations, but that’s quite public, might be opposed and could result in some embarrassment.
– self insure (as they do for many things)
Solving insurance won’t sort the need for classification society sign offs and pesky regulations that the gov wrote…
–declare it a British overseas Territory
an interesting idea, and potentially you could even claim they weren’t Britain anymore and fudge the stats. But if it’s an overseas territory it will have some autonomy and that could backfire!
– declare it a prison (that changes many rules)
a PR disaster, making it subject to HMI of Prisons, and providing the lefty-lawyers with a new angle… it’s probably best you aren’t making gov policy!
Etc
ernielynchFull MemberSpeaking to Sky News, Mr Kinnock said Labour would try to move asylum seekers out of hotels, barges and military camps as “quickly as possible”.
Which is obviously meaningless. Quickly as possible can mean weeks, months, or years. And he won’t even firmly commit to doing it as quickly as possible, only that he will “try to”.
The reality is that housing asylum seekers on barges is yet another Tory policy which after repeatedly condemning Labour have now announced they will be keeping if they form the next government.
I remain hugely unconvinced by the Tory claims that the reason for housing asylum seekers on barges, instead of hotels, is to save money.
The Rwanda fiasco shows that the Tories aren’t interested in saving money when dealing with asylum application issues, but are instead only motivated by gesture politics as they attempt to pander to bigots in search for their votes.
If this is the case and housing asylum seekers on barges instead of hotels doesn’t save the government any money then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why an incoming Labour government couldn’t commit itself to immediately ending the practice.
Unless of course the current Labour leadership is equally pandering to bigots in search of their votes.
If that is the case maybe we should stop criticizing the Tories for doing it?
Or perhaps condemn Labour for embracing Tory tactics.
reluctantjumperFull MemberThat’s what worries me, Labour seem to be subtly chasing the racist voters and are walking into the trap of being “just the same as the current lot”, removing a reason to vote them in next time. They should just come out and say that this barge and the Rwanda plan don’t save us any money, make the process more complex and slows the whole system down meaning the asylum seekers spend longer having to be housed at our expense while their applications are processed. If applications are processed quickly then the costs go down, the waiting list goes down and the whole system can work as intended. The sad thing is the Tories intend the system to be constantly on the brink of failure so that they can use it to drum up racist votes and Labour are enabling that to an extent with their poor criticism of the policy.
tjagainFull MemberIts not so subtle reluctant jumper. Its been a labour tactic for years appeasing racists. hence their brexit position and plenty of other examples
Ernie – I have consistently called this out
1kelvinFull MemberThey should just come out and say that this barge and the Rwanda plan don’t save us any money, make the process more complex and slows the whole system down meaning the asylum seekers spend longer having to be housed at our expense while their applications are processed.
They have. Repeatedly.
If applications are processed quickly then the costs go down, the waiting list goes down and the whole system can work as intended.
Precisely. As the Labour front bench have been saying at the opposition dispatch box and on the air waves at every opportunity.
3theotherjonvFree MemberThe reality is that housing asylum seekers on barges is yet another Tory policy which after repeatedly condemning Labour have now announced they will be keeping if they form the next government.
On the day they take over Government they will inherit all this. Of course they will ‘keep’ the policies and the barges for a period, they can’t enact alternates on the wave of a wand, or start gearing up the CS that will clear the backlogs before they take over. Turf them out onto the jetty, and then what??
What was actually said was
We’ll inherit a mess if we are privileged to win the next election……….the reality is, on day one we will have to deal with the we have and the shambolic mess they have left us. We’ll be left with no choice but to deal with the mess we inherit.
He said they thought they could get on top of the backlog in 6 months but didn’t commit to when they could get rid of all these policies, for sure, but that’s not the same as saying they’re keeping them.
You’re spinning the story in exactly the same way as the right wing press are trying to. Why?
I get the labour party isn’t everything you want it to be, but are you falling into the trap of playing the man and not the ball?
1tjagainFull MemberJonv. He could have pitched his answer very differently. ” its abhorrent. We will get people out of these punative conditions as a priority hopefully within weeks”
But the usual timidity . Pandering to the racist media
ernielynchFull MemberI have no idea how the right-wing press are spinning this story, I had only read the Sky News article which I linked.
Stephen Kinnock chose to give Sky News an interview and this what they reported:
“His rhetoric about the use of temporary accommodation for asylum seekers marks a change in tone from what Labour has previously said about the issue.”
Turf them out onto the jetty, and then what??
House them in hotels?
No one in their right mind would expect Labour to scrap the policy on the same day that they formed a government, but there is a fundamental difference between saying that they will keep the policy and saying that they will scrap the policy.
Labour saying that they view it as a temporary solution doesn’t sound a whole lot different to what the Tories are saying, which presumably is the intention – have the Tories ever claimed that this is a permanent solution to the problem of housing asylum seekers?
Both Germany and the Netherlands used the Bibby Stockholm as a temporary housing solution, the whole reason it was built was to provide temporary and movable accommodation.
1gobuchulFree MemberI’m still confused how this thing is regulated?
It’s not “offshore”, so it’s dodging those requirements.
The local Fire & Rescue have got involved and they want to treat it as a HMO but the Home Office claims it doesn’t apply. Although I’m not sure how the fire protection on this thing is not “better” than a building ashore? My guess would be that the occupants have no basic training certification, which includes, amongst other things, escape and use of fire extinguishers
There is no planning permission on the Poole Council website.
The insurance must be covered by the Government “self insurance”.
One thing is for sure, it’s costing an absolute fortune and will turn into an absolute shithole once you have a few hundred onboard.
1binnersFull MemberThe latest increasingly desperate dead cat/blame the woke lefty lawyers/culture war bullshit from Braverman and Co…
Ministers accused of ‘lawyer-bashing’ to distract from asylum policy failures https://t.co/oluVtoW7xQ
— Guardian news (@guardiannews) August 8, 2023
3theotherjonvFree MemberThe actual Kinnock interview.
“..we’re going to have to fix that mess. We will do so as quickly as possible to get people out of hotels and off barges and out of the military camps but the reality is that on day one we will have to deal with the infrastructure that we have and the complete chaotic and shambolic mess…….”
– nowhere in it (and it is an edited version, granted) does he say they will keep them. That word and the implications seems to be the headline writers and posters on here alone.
No one in their right mind would expect Labour to scrap the policy on the same day that they formed a government, but there is a fundamental difference between saying that they will keep the policy and saying that they will scrap the policy.
“We will do so as quickly as possible to get people out of hotels and off barges and out of the military camps”
how is that not more aligned with scrapping the policy than your interpretation of ‘we’re keeping it’?
reluctantjumperFull MemberThey have. Repeatedly.
Then why has that message not got through to people, I certainly haven’t heard them say it more than in the odd occasion. Is the Tory right-wing media that good at blocking out the Labour message that it just doesn’t get heard?
ernielynchFull Memberthan your interpretation of ‘we’re keeping it’?
I don’t think that I own the interpretation, 3 weeks ago the Guardian was reporting that Labour were considering keeping, or using if you prefer, barges to house asylum seekers:
The reality is that Labour doesn’t want to appear too hostile to the Tory policy. Otherwise they would publicly condemn it and state that they would immediately scrap it.
The amount of asylum seekers it is likely to house can’t be that different to the amount of small boat arrivals on a bad day. A couple of months ago 686 arrived in one day, if the authorities can house them immediately in hotel accommodations than an incoming Labour could rehouse those on the Bibby Stockholm fairly quickly.
MoreCashThanDashFull MemberMy view was that Labour have no choice but to carry on using barges etc until the backlog is cleared, however long that takes. Seems sensible not to commit to ending their use
1MoreCashThanDashFull MemberIs the Tory right-wing media that good at blocking out the Labour message that it just doesn’t get heard?
Yes.
2theotherjonvFree MemberSelective quoting there:
3 weeks ago the Guardian was reporting that Labour were considering keeping, or using if you prefer, barges to house asylum seekers:
That article: Barges and disused military bases could continue to be used to house asylum seekers under a Labour government until a claims backlog has cleared
Even if they scrapped the barges immediately they took power, unless they’re turfed onto the streets, even moving to hotels would take time to arrange.
I see nothing particularly inconsistent between what Kinnock said or Cooper said, or what the reality of life post new Government would be.
Sure, it might not be as condemning of the policies as many would like but it is a truthful and practical assessment of the situation, yet one that several posters on here are bashing them for.
Play the ball, not the man.
tjagainFull MemberIta 500bedsmaxout ofmany tens of thousands needed. Open your other eye. Of course they could commit to stopping the use quicklybut they are to scared of tbe backlash to do so
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.