Chandlers Yacht back in UK

whipper_snapper said:
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 they 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.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's easy for me to talk - I get daily briefs on pirate activity in that part of the world - but the information I get on pirate attacks (whether successful or not) is made available to the general public (see the links I posted earlier.

The move S of pirate activity has been apparent since the end of the monsoon season. It's easier to patrol the Gulf of Aden than it is the entire NW of the Indian Ocean.

IMO, this was not a calculated risk. For a soft target - such as a yacht - running into trouble in that area was virtually guaranteed. :(
 
jonic said:
I'll try again.....

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

When the attack was made by agents of a government with their governments permission. Pirate attacks alone cannot be considered a just cause for declaring war on a nation. It's made even more difficult with somalia, as who do you declare war on?
 
grumpy_o_g said:
I'm afraid this post sounds like something that comes out of Mandelson's mouth, it's so ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You bitch.

Why do you refer to "blowing the pirates, the yacht and the Chandlers out of the water".
Click to expand...

Because that has been a repeated demand on these forums. The RN view seems to have been that they could not intervene without an extremely high risk to the Chandler's lives. Despite that, many of the armchair admirals hear think it would have been worth teaching the fuzzy wuzzies a lesson by attacking. Several have said that the consequent death of the Chandlers would, though regrettable, have been a price worth paying.

Do you agree?

Nearly every post that has criticised inaction has suggested a measured response.
Click to expand...

Without ever specifying what that response should have been, though. Would anyone recommend an unmeasured 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.
Click to expand...

Oh good heavens, no. Two completely different things. I'm still looking forward to a list of the insults heaped on hapless British heads as a result of this.

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.
Click to expand...

He wants details of military policy because he pays for them. I'm interested to know how wide ranging his demands are.

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?
Click to expand...

Explaining a single case to people is involved is rather different from revealing the full details of operational policy to the world because a couple of blokes on a website think they could have done better.

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.
Click to expand...

That's a remarkable claim, in that it is completely wrong in all respects. But anyway, you should not be addressing it to me, but to the experienced and train military commanders and strategists than whom you know so much better.

I'm ignoring the rest of your message, as it's pure fantasy.
 
flobbergob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can I add you, then, to my list of posters who think it would have been better to kill the Chandlers in order to discourage future attacks?
 
How about....

Am I correct in understanding that the RFA vessel had a helicopter with offensive capability?

If I am correct I would have thought the obvious course of action was to follow the pirates towards their mothership and then sink that before they could get there. They wouldn't be in much of a position to bargain after that. No doubt that would be non-PC or potentially illegal but would be highly effective.

How about the UN sponsoring an immediate change to international law declaring an exclusion zone around Somalia within which vessels not registered with the appropriate authorities and on a pre-approved passage will be taken by force and confiscated. Non-compliance with an order to stop and hand over weapons will change the rules of engagement to sinking it on the spot.

It is not beyond the wit of even us to come up with simple workable solutions to this.

What about it Gordo. Do something useful for once in your life.
 
The excuses for doing nothing are all very reasonable and IMO commendably civilised and quite likely to work...........in downtown Milton Keynes (or Jersey :)). That's one of the reasons I live somewhere civilised :cool:.

But IME in some other parts of the world if you have something to protect you need to be more trouble than it's worth to mess with.........call it having "mojo" in the bank. To build up "mojo" you do however need to recognise that Western notions of proportionality let alone legality are simply an irrelevance. Making empty threats even if waving a gun :rolleyes: are counterproductive. In practice death works well as a way of making a point, as well as limiting repercussions ("I ain't afraid of no Ghost" :eek: :D). Funny "mojo" 3rd hand stories / unfounded rumours to illustrate not included as funny does not always translate well accross cultures / into legaleeze :p

Now, it may well be that the "great and the good" do not want to go down the above route for valid liberal reasons - in which case the UK should simply withdraw it's forces and commercial interests from any areas of potential conflict, hide behind those who are capable of deploying mojo or be subject to the whims & wishes of our enemies..........as the situation is now.

Although I wish the Chandlers well, this incident is not solely about them - to think and act that way is to rather miss the point. But missing the point seems to be favoured tactic on so much within 21st century Britain that by many it's genuinely considered normal :(


Finally, I can't remember who asked about where in the world British people / armed forces are treated with contempt............I would think Zimbabwe, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ireland for a start. A good case to argue that the Russians and the Chinese ain't too concerned about HMG - whether or not spearheaded by the boy Milliband :rolleyes: and the fool Brown. Of course the Iranians are probably also not quite so respectful of us as they once were. My apologies to any peoples / countries I have omitted from my quick list :p

For those who want an easy answer.............Crucifixtions. (and environmentally freindly too :D).
 
Guapa said:
OK, I'll bite - what obvious reasons :confused:

The French - who according to you have the same approach as every other country - bring them back to France for trail.
Click to expand...


I'm terrified that someone as ignorant as you can vote. I've said for years that the cote should be accompanied by a simple general knowledge test.

Let me explain. A prisoner serving a lengthy prison sentence in the EU who doesn't have a relatively safe country to go back to is pretty likely (certain?) to get EU residency at the end of their sentence.

I really don't want to be living next to a Somali Pirate in 15 years time.

Don't believe me? Check for yourself.

Now I think about it nor do I want to pay for a trial, nor do I want to pay for their time in prison.

In fact when you think about it can you imagine if the Pirates found out that the 'punishment' for Piracy was 15 years of decent food, safety and order, plus 21st century medical attention followed by EU residency! Everyone in Somalia would become pirates overnight.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
I really don't want to be living next to a Somali Pirate in 15 years time.
Click to expand...

Errrrrr.....what makes you think that every Somali who already makes it to the UK legally / illegally is not someone who has been quite comfortable to do "what it takes" to survive with an AK47 or a machete?...........or is it in your La La Land that only the nice people emigrate from Somalia and that the bad guys stay and become Pirates etc :rolleyes:
 
David_Jersey said:
Errrrrr.....what makes you think that every Somali who already makes it to the UK legally / illegally is not someone who has been quite comfortable to do "what it takes" to survive with an AK47 or a machete?...........or is it in your La La Land that only the nice people emigrate from Somalia and that the bad guys stay and become Pirates etc :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sorry David, can you point at where I said "I think that every Somali who already makes it to the UK legally / illegally is not someone who has been quite comfortable to do "what it takes" to survive with an AK47 or a machete".

LOL!

Only on YBW could the statement "I really don't want to be living next to a Somali Pirate in 15 years time." be controversial! Funny old world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top