Chandlers Yacht back in UK

[Woodlouse]

Was a day when trained and experienced people sailing under the white ensign would have gone to the rescue of any boat/ship under the red ensign and in need without question. The only possible excuse that I can see is that they were scared the Chandlers would be hurt but if armed Navy personnel stopped the pirates, a bit of threatening behaviour would probably have secured their release if the oiks were allowed to go free.

The ship in question was sailing under a defaced blue ensign. And we all know what the general opinion of blue ensigns is around here.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

a bit of threatening behaviour would probably have secured their release if the oiks were allowed to go free.

Yet, the people on the scene felt that "a bit of threatening behaviour" was not an appropriate course of action in that situation.

Can you explain what information you have that makes your plan more valid than the plan the RFA chose?

 

[alant]

I expect they can, and have, and will. To people who are entitled to them, though, and not to any bloke on a website with a thirst for knowledge. Anyway, just how good an idea would it be for the RN rules of engagement to be made public knowledge?

"To people who are entitled to them"

So, who better entitled to them, that UK Joe Public, who these faceless wonders supposedly serve?

Oh, hang on I forgot, maybe the Chandlers might also like to know who dropped them in the ****!

"just how good an idea would it be for the RN rules of engagement to be made public knowledge?"

Bit late now, we already do & so do all the f---ing pirates!
Our country has, from this 'little' incident, become a country of scorn, whose subjects can be abused, seemingly with impunity.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Our country has, from this 'little' incident, become a country of scorn, whose subjects can be abused, seemingly with impunity.

I bet you can't justify that statement.

It's simple. If someone has hostages and has a track record of not killing hostages, usually no sane power is going to start a gunfight with them. Usually it's much safer to let them go unmolested.

It's bloody obvious.

The hostage takers could work that out. The crew of the RFA could work that out.

Why can't you?

Or if you have some clever perspective that nobody else has thought about, why are you not in contact with the Navy yourself to share it with them?

 

[beserksail]

If you read the Chandlers blog they admit they were warned of pirates before they left the Seychelles, shame all the same.

 

[LadyInBed]

yacht has been returned to the UK onboard the Royal Navy ship

I wonder who will pick up the transportation and mooring fees

 

[Ubergeekian]

"To people who are entitled to them"

So, who better entitled to them, that UK Joe Public, who these faceless wonders supposedly serve?

Do you have a right to the launch codes for the nuclear missiles you helped buy?

Oh, hang on I forgot, maybe the Chandlers might also like to know who dropped them in the ****!

Yes, I certainly think they will be entitled to an explanation in due course.

Our country has, from this 'little' incident, become a country of scorn, whose subjects can be abused, seemingly with impunity.

Some examples, please. Do you think it would have been better to blow the pirates, the yacht and the Chandlers out of the water?

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Do you have a right to the launch codes for the nuclear missiles you helped buy?



Yes, I certainly think they will be entitled to an explanation in due course.



Some examples, please. Do you think it would have been better to blow the pirates, the yacht and the Chandlers out of the water?

I'm afraid this post sounds like something that comes out of Mandelson's mouth, it's so ridiculous.

Why do you refer to "blowing the pirates, the yacht and the Chandlers out of the water". Nearly every post that has criticised inaction has suggested a measured response. You've asked the poster to provide some examples to back up what they have claimed about the perception of this country by others. You don't wait for him to respond though; you plant some images of your own - extreme images of people and boats being blown up - in people's minds to pre-empt his response and get YOUR IMAGES associated with his words.

To counter that, from what I can see of your argument:

Knowing why our Armed Forces failed to act when British subjects they within feet of are in extreme danger is just like revealing nuclear launch codes to the public.

It is safe for the Chandler's to know why the Wave Ruler and her crew chose to act in that way but no-one else. Surely either it cannot be revealed in the interests of national security/for operational reasons or it can? If the Chandler's are told it is effectively in the public domain or are we hoping they'll keep it a secret?

Your only concept of the use of military force is wholesale destruction with a total disregard to any civilian casualties or what our US colleagues call "collateral damage". Because of this you advocate total inaction unless there is an opportunity to capture pirates or release hostages with no risk. You're not sure what to do with them afterwards though if they actually do capture any.

You are comfortable that the pirates have not been encouraged in any way by the fact that an RFA vessel with an RN complement on anti-piracy duty stood off and took no action while they continued with the kidnap of the chandlers using a small skiff and small arms/RPG.

You do not believe that the perception of the UK as a nation has been in any way damaged or diminished by the fact that Americans have successfully rescued hostages after they have been kidnapped , the French have successful rescued hostages after they have been kidnapped and the British have stood off and watched British subjects be kidnapped (from an armed vessel sent there by the Government to combat piracy).

You feel that a policy of paying the ransom demanded is best one and won't encourage the pirates in any way but that we could perhaps set up a fund to cover this but that it doesn't really matter anyway because no-one will ever get killed because the pirates will get bored and release them after a while.

 

[David_Jersey]

I wonder who will pick up the transportation and mooring fees

During WWII a fella escaped from Jersey to England in a 12 foot rowing boat. When he arrived HMG charged him import duty on the boat. I doubt if much has changed

 

[jonic]

In what instance, if any, would an armed attack on a British flagged vessel be deemed an act of war?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Knowing why our Armed Forces failed to act when British subjects they within feet of are in extreme danger is just like revealing nuclear launch codes to the public.

The Somalis, and everyone else knows why. It's because they had hostages. They understand the power of hostages. So does (almost) everyone else.

You are comfortable that the pirates have not been encouraged in any way by the fact that an RFA vessel with an RN complement on anti-piracy duty stood off and took no action while they continued with the kidnap of the chandlers using a small skiff and small arms/RPG.

But they already know that from countless unreported incidents and plenty of reported ones! A handful or pirates in a lifeboat with one hostage held off an American Warship for a week or so! The US warship didn't dare do a thing until they'd reduced the number of hostage-takers on the lifeboat and the snipers got a good shot. They didn't choose to machine-gun in the general direction in the hope that the hostage takers would give up. (Some of the clever ones amongst us will be able to imagine multiple reasons why that might be.)

The idea that the hostage takers didn't understand the power of hostages until this incident is a joke!

the French have successful rescued hostages after they have been kidnapped and the British have stood off and watched British subjects be kidnapped (from an armed vessel sent there by the Government to combat piracy).

If you're trying to use that as evidence that the French has a different policy to the UK on this you're wrong. The French handle these situation in exactly the same way as all other nations.

 

[Wandering Star]

The Somalis, and everyone else knows why. It's because they had hostages. They understand the power of hostages. So does (almost) everyone else.

I'm sure you're correct but the power of using hostages will be perpetuated by their actions in standing off. The power of hostage taking is only valid because we allow it to be. If we had threatened to blow the pirates out of the water and the pirates had known we really would too, hostage taking would be perceived to be not quite such a powerful tool in the future.

I'm not convinced that sinking or shooting at the pirate boat would have automatically resulted in the execution of the Chandlers, if I was a pirate I'd be too busy trying to swim or avoid the flak to save my skin than I would be to summarily execute the Chandlers. It would be mayhem and yes, mayhem and enormous risk for the Chandlers too but an acceptable risk in my opinion if it sent out a strong message hostage taking isn't a tool to use in the future.

Cheers, Brian.

 

[alant]

I'm afraid this post sounds like something that comes out of Mandelson's mouth, it's so ridiculous.

Why do you refer to "blowing the pirates, the yacht and the Chandlers out of the water". Nearly every post that has criticised inaction has suggested a measured response. You've asked the poster to provide some examples to back up what they have claimed about the perception of this country by others. You don't wait for him to respond though; you plant some images of your own - extreme images of people and boats being blown up - in people's minds to pre-empt his response and get YOUR IMAGES associated with his words.

To counter that, from what I can see of your argument:

Knowing why our Armed Forces failed to act when British subjects they within feet of are in extreme danger is just like revealing nuclear launch codes to the public.

It is safe for the Chandler's to know why the Wave Ruler and her crew chose to act in that way but no-one else. Surely either it cannot be revealed in the interests of national security/for operational reasons or it can? If the Chandler's are told it is effectively in the public domain or are we hoping they'll keep it a secret?

Your only concept of the use of military force is wholesale destruction with a total disregard to any civilian casualties or what our US colleagues call "collateral damage". Because of this you advocate total inaction unless there is an opportunity to capture pirates or release hostages with no risk. You're not sure what to do with them afterwards though if they actually do capture any.

You are comfortable that the pirates have not been encouraged in any way by the fact that an RFA vessel with an RN complement on anti-piracy duty stood off and took no action while they continued with the kidnap of the chandlers using a small skiff and small arms/RPG.

You do not believe that the perception of the UK as a nation has been in any way damaged or diminished by the fact that Americans have successfully rescued hostages after they have been kidnapped , the French have successful rescued hostages after they have been kidnapped and the British have stood off and watched British subjects be kidnapped (from an armed vessel sent there by the Government to combat piracy).

You feel that a policy of paying the ransom demanded is best one and won't encourage the pirates in any way but that we could perhaps set up a fund to cover this but that it doesn't really matter anyway because no-one will ever get killed because the pirates will get bored and release them after a while.

"I'm sure you're correct but the power of using hostages will be perpetuated by their actions in standing off. The power of hostage taking is only valid because we allow it to be. If we had threatened to blow the pirates out of the water and the pirates had known we really would too, hostage taking would be perceived to be not quite such a powerful tool in the future.

I'm not convinced that sinking or shooting at the pirate boat would have automatically resulted in the execution of the Chandlers, if I was a pirate I'd be too busy trying to swim or avoid the flak to save my skin than I would be to summarily execute the Chandlers. It would be mayhem and yes, mayhem and enormous risk for the Chandlers too but an acceptable risk in my opinion if it sent out a strong message hostage taking isn't a tool to use in the future.

Cheers, Brian."

Thank you gentlemen, the above responses explain it all as far as I am concerned.

"I bet you can't justify that statement."

The many on this forum, who have responded with scorn, justifies my statement!

You are blinkered by the fact that the Chandlers were NOT HOSTAGES, until the lack of action succeeded in making them so! Shooting at pirates who already hold hostages is not what most of us are discussing, it is the lack of engagement prior to that!

 

[Koeketiene]

If you're trying to use that as evidence that the French has a different policy to the UK on this you're wrong. The French handle these situation in exactly the same way as all other nations.

Just how far have you got your head up your own rear end?



To quote a former French president: You've missed several excellent opportunities to shut up.

 

[Clarky]

The Somalis, and everyone else knows why. It's because they had hostages. They understand the power of hostages. So does (almost) everyone else.



But they already know that from countless unreported incidents and plenty of reported ones! A handful or pirates in a lifeboat with one hostage held off an American Warship for a week or so! The US warship didn't dare do a thing until they'd reduced the number of hostage-takers on the lifeboat and the snipers got a good shot. They didn't choose to machine-gun in the general direction in the hope that the hostage takers would give up. (Some of the clever ones amongst us will be able to imagine multiple reasons why that might be.)

The idea that the hostage takers didn't understand the power of hostages until this incident is a joke!



If you're trying to use that as evidence that the French has a different policy to the UK on this you're wrong. The French handle these situation in exactly the same way as all other nations.

Dear Toad,

How many times do you miss the point,intervention should have been made to prevent the pirates returning to the mothership,then there would have been a stand off and by then the frigate which was nearby would have arrived.
This situation was not just about the Chandlers ,it is about preventing kidnapping,the authorities do not generally stand around and watch ,this is what happened with the Chandlers,it sends out the wrong message,it encourages piracy and kidnapping.
The situation was then made worse by the those in charge issuing false statements ,obviously because they were embarrassed by the poor leadership displayed.It is interesting to note that nobody has dared to come forward to say it was their decision.The ships captain has not done so ,and if he was happy with his actions I am sure he would be doing so.I smell the interference of spineless people who are now hiding away from their gutless decision making.The heroes are those that risked their career to expose the gutless decision making and lieing which took place afterwards.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

"the Chandlers were NOT HOSTAGES

(sigh)

...and on that note I think I'll leave this topic alone!

 

[whipper_snapper]

Somali pirates have been known to operate as much as 1,200NM off the Somali coast (or did you think pirates would stick to territorial waters?).

Sigh. Look at where I am based.

What do you think!?

 

[Koeketiene]

Sigh. Look at where I am based.

What do think!?

So, how does that tie in with this?

Those criticizing this unlucky couple for sailing in 'highly dangerous waters' might do well to look at a map.

I have looked at the map, and yes, where they were kidnapped are 'highly dangerous waters'.

So, what was your point?

 

[whipper_snapper]

So, how does that tie in with this?



I have looked at the map, and yes, where they were kidnapped are 'highly dangerous waters'.

So, what was your point?

My point was that there is a lot of sea (and several bits of land) between the red sea and Madagascar and Kenya/Tanzania and W of 60E. I constantly see them being criticized for sailing in pirate infested Somali waters. They were not. They were in waters that until recently were relatively safe. There have been incidents in the area, Notably the Sirius Star and the French Yacht, but nothing like the density of incidents further N

One year ago it was considered pretty safe. I decided not to go there this year, but I would not criticize someone for taking a calculated risk. A long distance cruiser who found themselves there as the pirates were being driven S by would have little choice but to head for mainland Africa S of say, Tanga. That apparently is what they were doing. Perhaps they should just have sat where they were. Perhaps they should have headed due E, next stop Asia. Perhaps thyey were foolish to go to waters that were clearly becoming less safe. But it was not a pair of idiots naively drifting around off Somalia and the S.E. Red Sea as some appear to believe.

 

[Woodlouse]

You are blinkered by the fact that the Chandlers were NOT HOSTAGES, until the lack of action succeeded in making them so! Shooting at pirates who already hold hostages is not what most of us are discussing, it is the lack of engagement prior to that!

Erm... They were in a skiff, being held against their will whilst being transported between their boat and the pirate mother ship by a gang of armed pirates. If they were not hostages then just what were they?