Border Force, the RYA, and £1000 fine !

sarabande said:
... trying to improve the performance of the Border Force as a service to all ...
Click to expand...

It might not be what you think you intended, but this ^^^ is definitely politics.

A fine example of politics, I may add. Totally commendable. And something all of us should be backing and striving for.

(the stupidity is the "banning politics" thing)
 
Black Sheep said:
Unfortunately any VHF broadcasts would have been out of range when they left the Azores 12 days previously. My understanding is that the yachtsmen contacted the authorities as soon as they were within range in order to check the procedure. But were fined for not having completed a passenger locator form mid-atlantic, out of all communication range, when the rules had changed mid-voyage.

It's hard to see that the VHF broadcasts would make any difference - the problem is that the rules changed mid-voyage. The law was written and enforced as if all international journeys take a few hours at most.
Click to expand...

The broadcasts specifically told people what to do on arrival and they would have received these instructions on arrival in UK waters. . If they did not follow these instructions then not surprised Jobsworths had a wobbler.
 
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this.
It seems that BF issued penalties for sailors not having the ability to correctly guess what a government department would do several days in the future, and not having the equipment to receive VHF transmissions from many hundreds of miles away using short range VHF equipment.
This is leaving aside the issue of who the passenger to be located is on a single handed vessel.
It needs testing in court - magistrates are usually sensible people. (YMMV!) Or maybe BF will fold so as to minimise egg on face?
 
Rum Run said:
This is leaving aside the issue of who the passenger to be located is on a single handed vessel.
Click to expand...
An interesting point. But can you show that the word "passenger" in the name of the form requires/implies a legal status of the person filling it in? They might have used "traveller", but that has other implications too...
 
mjcoon said:
An interesting point. But can you show that the word "passenger" in the name of the form requires/implies a legal status of the person filling it in? They might have used "traveller", but that has other implications too...
Click to expand...
I think the difference between Crew and Passenger is well established in the sea faring world as is is in aviation.
 
Buck Turgidson said:
I think the difference between Crew and Passenger is well established in the sea faring world as is is in aviation.
Click to expand...
Which would be relevant if there were any point in having two versions of the form with correspondingly different names. Assuming there isn't, it makes sense to name the form for the more numerous category and have everyone fill in a "passenger" form.
 
That's terrible, I feel sorry for the guys. Will it result in a criminal record they could effect future employment or is it a fixed penalty?

However they'll obviously have known that rules could change etc, that they could have been asked to isolate in a hotel on arrival etc. That would have likely cost a similar amount so maybe they are ok with that sort of cost??? Or is it a matter of principle?
 
mucklestone said:
That's terrible, I feel sorry for the guys. Will it result in a criminal record they could effect future employment or is it a fixed penalty?

However they'll obviously have known that rules could change etc, that they could have been asked to isolate in a hotel on arrival etc. That would have likely cost a similar amount so maybe they are ok with that sort of cost??? Or is it a matter of principle?
Click to expand...
Didn't you have to arrive at Heathrow if you needed to go in to Quarantine. There may have been entry at other major airports, but not many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top