Chandlers ransom blocked by UK government

[lenseman]

A British couple kidnapped by Somali pirates six weeks ago were on the verge of being freed for a £100,000 ransom when the government blocked the deal, the Observer can reveal.

The money to release Paul and Rachel Chandler, taken hostage from their yacht on 23 October, had been agreed by a British negotiator two weeks ago. Foreign Office officials rejected the breakthrough, saying that they would not allow payments to hostage-takers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/06/paul-rachel-chandler-ransom-pirates

SAIL-WORLD link:

http://www.sail-world.com/UK/Pirate-deal-blocked-and-captured-sailor-getting-frail/64163

 

[l'escargot]

Not so good for the Chandlers but probably better for everyone else.

Once an agreed sum is paid to the pirates, the danger would be that it would become the standard price to be paid for all small yachts they capture in the future - it would effectively be putting a price on every cruising yacht the pirates could lay their hands on.

 

[zaragozo]

The negotiators in this instance appear to be folk from the rather assertively named Merchant Maritime Warfare Centre, an independent industry funded (including insurers?) organisation created by "seasoned maritime security specialists" and which has no government remit. A cynical observer may well construe that if there's money awash on the shores of Somalia, then why shouldn't these "marine mercenaries" get a cut - and look forward to a continuing revenue stream from more kidnappings.

 

[Cliveshep]

Just wondering what the diplomatic response might be if, instead of a yachting couple being held hostage it was, (and oh how I wish) our Gordie?

 

[Brian blue bear]

Pay Pay Pay

The negotiators in this instance appear to be folk from the rather assertively named Merchant Maritime Warfare Centre, an independent industry funded (including insurers?) organisation created by "seasoned maritime security specialists" and which has no government remit. A cynical observer may well construe that if there's money awash on the shores of Somalia, then why shouldn't these "marine mercenaries" get a cut - and look forward to a continuing revenue stream from more kidnappings.

although very Risky the security Forces had a perfect Chance to rid the area of a Gang of Pirates and send a clear message.. my thoughts are What Idiot would let a gang of Pirates to go free to terrorise, rob, steal, murder or kidnap, who Knows how many people.. much more of a risk.. however if what has been said is accurate,To secure the release will cost very much less than an MPs essensial, nessesary expenses, even less than a couple of weeks wages for some of the luckier ones in society. Indeed it cost me several years income for forgetting a letter, really is what is society coming to when Life and freedom of such Brave, sensible, intellegent kind people, have apparently so little value. authorities don't seem to be concerned about risk now do they... my opinion undefensible.. Pick our Battles with at least a little common sense

 

[longjohnsilver]

A British couple kidnapped by Somali pirates six weeks ago were on the verge of being freed for a £100,000 ransom when the government blocked the deal, the Observer can reveal.

The money to release Paul and Rachel Chandler, taken hostage from their yacht on 23 October, had been agreed by a British negotiator two weeks ago. Foreign Office officials rejected the breakthrough, saying that they would not allow payments to hostage-takers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/06/paul-rachel-chandler-ransom-pirates

SAIL-WORLD link:

http://www.sail-world.com/UK/Pirate-deal-blocked-and-captured-sailor-getting-frail/64163

Something seems odd and not right about that report. If someone has the money and wants to pay it to the pirates then why does the govt have to be involved? Surely it's up to him/her/them to make contact with the pirates and make the arrangements to hand over the cash. Nowt to do with the govt.

 

[V1701]

Something seems odd and not right about that report. If someone has the money and wants to pay it to the pirates then why does the govt have to be involved? Surely it's up to him/her/them to make contact with the pirates and make the arrangements to hand over the cash. Nowt to do with the govt.

Totally agree with you, nothing to do with the govt., but also against paying any ransom as will set a precedent & encourage the pirates. Very easy for me to say sitting in the comfort of my living room, but it's sickening to be unable to do anything to help Paul & Rachel. Has the government actually done anything at all to help them?

 

[jonic]

Words fail me.

 

[Daedelus]

The Cruising Association put out a very interesting article on this recently.

They made the point that making a fuss about possible ransoms and even starting a fund only encouraged pirates to hang onto hostages like these.

All comes down to Danegeld I suppose.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

also against paying any ransom as will set a precedent & encourage the pirates.

Me too. On the whole paying people to kidnap other people is about as stupid as it gets.

I actually question if this story is true: Can someone explain to me exactly what mechanism the Government used to stop one set of private individuals paying another set of private individuals abroad, a sum of money?

 

[Bilgediver]

Me too. On the whole paying people to kidnap other people is about as stupid as it gets.

I actually question if this story is true: Can someone explain to me exactly what mechanism the Government used to stop one set of private individuals paying another set of private individuals abroad, a sum of money?

It doesn t surprise me in the least and as we have seen in recent years this government is free to control Joe Public with little regard to existing laws.

Maybe if £100,000 was taken some where on the QT and then transferred then no problem if you had a receiving account number but I am sure any transfer from BrownDarling INC to a bank in Somalia would ring bells all over MI5 or MI6 . There may be a lot of artistic licence in "SPOOKS" but some of it is I am sure especially close to the bone....I wondered who the most recent was pointing the finger out regarding corruption in high places. Considering these programs were made months ago some of them seem amazingly close to current events.

 

[zaragozo]

Clearly I'm no lawyer but maybe a third party (even acting on 'behalf' of a victim) of crime might be construed as aiding and abetting the perpetrators of the alleged crime. Which could be an offence in the UK as well as Somalia.
But I'm not convinced there's a spookish plot being cooked up by Brown, Darling or MI5 to do something or not to endanger/save kidnapped sailing folk, Joe Public or my cat.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Clearly I'm no lawyer but maybe a third party (even acting on 'behalf' of a victim) of crime might be construed as aiding and abetting the perpetrators of the alleged crime.

Maybe, but there's a standing defence of necessity so you’d think that anyone facing court over that would simply argue that.

My gut feeling is the story is horse poo.

 

[Vonasi]

I had a conversation last night with some Swiss friends about the subject of hostage taking. We discussed Swiss, French, German and British government responses to this. Then today I read this post.

It appears that an awful lot of countries' governments (including most of the above except the UK) will just quietly pay hostage takers, and many nationalities think this is right because they have never known any different. I think that in the UK we fall back on our sense of fair play. Hostage taking is wrong and so paying ransoms is wrong.

I also recall a Radio 4 documentary that I heard a while back that said that many big corporations (particularly oil companies) readily pay ransoms to stop their company name looking bad. Financially a good idea but a great incentive to take another oil worker hostage.

It would seem fairly straight forward to me that if every country in the world were to agree to not pay ransoms and to imprison anybody who did for life, then hostage taking would stop within a very short space of time. Pirates in Somalia take hostages because they know someone who did the same thing and got rich through it. If they knew someone who took a hostage and got nothing but a debt for the RIB and all the food they had to feed the hostages then the incentive would be gone.

I think that the British governments stand against paying ransoms should be given the respect that it deserves. It has always been the British governments policy not to give in to hostage takers and it always should be. It doesn't matter whether it is £1, £100,000 or £100,000,000, the principles are the same. Yes it might be difficult for the Chandlers family, but better just one family and not everybody who sails anywhere near Africa. It's about time other nations woke up.

 

[Grumpybear]

according to an official notice in our marina, all transfers of money in or out of the EU over about 5K euros (I may be wrong about the sum)must be reported in advance under EC money laundering regulations, on pain of a criminal conviction etc.....