Page 56 of 76 FirstFirst ... 6464748495051525354555657585960616263646566 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 755
  1. #551
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,937

    Default

    [QUOTE=toad_oftoadhall;3489805]
    Quote Originally Posted by bbg View Post
    check Art.60. It doesn't mention drugs.[/QUOTEAre

    Art 60: "When significant evidence can be assumed that a person is carrying narcotics concealed in his body, customs officials can make it subject to medical screening after having obtained his consent."
    toad, the information on the first two points in your earlier post has been posted many many many many times, which is why it is clear you are lying about them. Posting it again will neither convince you or make you any less of a liar.

    As for Article 60, you clearly didn't check it.

    Pour l'application des dispositions du présent code et en vue de la recherche de la fraude, les agents des douanes peuvent procéder à la visite des marchandises et des moyens de transport et à celle des personnes.
    It doesn't mention drugs.
    Apartment for rent in Klosters, Switzerland http://goo.gl/HKIcgK

  2. #552
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timbartlett View Post
    No, you are quite right: it doesn't.
    It's in french, so it calls them "des produits stupéfiants" (stupefying products) Doesn't that mean "drugs".

    The rest is all about procedures and penalties if the suspect does not give his consent. Nothing whatsoever about certificates of registry!
    Wrong section. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
    Apartment for rent in Klosters, Switzerland http://goo.gl/HKIcgK

  3. #553
    toad_oftoadhall's Avatar
    toad_oftoadhall is offline Registered User
    Location : Med/Scotland/South Coast
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bbg View Post
    toad, the information on the first two points in your earlier post has been posted many many many many times, which is why it is clear you are lying about them. Posting it again will neither convince you or make you any less of a liar.
    If it was there, you could post it. You can't.

  4. #554
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toad_oftoadhall View Post
    If it was there, you could post it. You can't.
    I have, many times, but you keep lying and saying it isn't there. Posting it again won't help. You'll just keep lying.
    Apartment for rent in Klosters, Switzerland http://goo.gl/HKIcgK

  5. #555
    toad_oftoadhall's Avatar
    toad_oftoadhall is offline Registered User
    Location : Med/Scotland/South Coast
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bbg View Post
    Wrong section. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
    LOL.

    Art 60 Bis: "When serious evidence can be assumed that a person is carrying narcotics hidden in his body, customs officers may make it subject to medical screening after its prior consent."



    http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affich...Texte=20110209

  6. #556
    timbartlett Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sybarite View Post
    ...The letter from the Douane specifically states that the registration documents must be available on board....
    The letter from the Douane specifically states that the Montego Bay Convention says that the registration documents must be available on board.

    The Montego Bay Convention (better known as UNCLOS) says nothing of the kind.

    That is one of the points I have been making all along: whoever wrote that letter is misrepresenting the contents of a freely-available international treaty. Whether the discrepancy between her version and the actual treaty is accidental or deliberate is a matter of conjecture, but it casts serious doubt on the reliability of anything else she says.

    Here's what the cited Article of UNCLOS really says:
    http://www.un.org/depts/los/conventi...clos/part7.htm Article91

    Nationality of ships

    1. Every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship.

    2. Every State shall issue to ships to which it has granted the right to fly its flag documents to that effect.
    Please note (yet again):-
    (1) Every state has the right to fix its own conditions for the grant of its nationality. It is not up to France -- and certainly not up to the whim of a french official -- to decide whether a vessel may or may not be granted British nationality.
    (2) Nationality and Registration are not synonymous. In many states (including Britain) a vessel may be granted Nationality without being Registered
    (3) Part2 of this article imposes an obligation on the state to issue "documents to that effect". It imposes no obligation on the vessel, master, or owner, and says nothing about where the documents are to be stored.

  7. #557
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toad_oftoadhall View Post
    LOL.

    Art 60 Bis: "When serious evidence can be assumed that a person is carrying narcotics hidden in his body, customs officers may make it subject to medical screening after its prior consent."



    http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affich...Texte=20110209
    That's 60 bis, not 60. 60 (referred to in the douanier's letter) doesn't mention drugs.

    You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
    Apartment for rent in Klosters, Switzerland http://goo.gl/HKIcgK

  8. #558
    toad_oftoadhall's Avatar
    toad_oftoadhall is offline Registered User
    Location : Med/Scotland/South Coast
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bbg View Post
    I have, many times, but you keep lying and saying it isn't there. Posting it again won't help. You'll just keep lying.
    Humour me.

    a) State the verifiable vessel that's been prosecuted.

    b) State the offence.

    If the two match up it will be impossible to deny it.

  9. #559
    toad_oftoadhall's Avatar
    toad_oftoadhall is offline Registered User
    Location : Med/Scotland/South Coast
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bbg View Post
    That's 60 bis, not 60. 60 (referred to in the douanier's letter) doesn't mention drugs.
    Good spot, the original mail doesn't mention 60 Bis at all.

    Nobody's noticed that before AFAIK.

    So is Art 60 the law you're refusing to tell me? Or is it irrelvant as Sybarite claims?

  10. #560
    timbartlett Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bbg View Post
    Wrong section. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
    Sorry, I quoted 60 bis.

    60 does indeed say "Pour l'application des dispositions du présent code et en vue de la recherche de la fraude, les agents des douanes peuvent procéder à la visite des marchandises et des moyens de transport et à celle des personnes."

    I don't think I or anyone else has ever suggested that Customs officers did not have a right to enter and inspect a vessel or the goods and people on board. Can you please identify where in Article60 it mentions their right to demand production of a Certificate of Registry?

    Because I'm afraid I still don't see it.

Page 56 of 76 FirstFirst ... 6464748495051525354555657585960616263646566 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •