Greenpeace

Stemar

Well-known member
Joined
12 Sep 2001
Messages
23,967
Location
Home - Southampton, Boat - Gosport
Visit site
I'm not a great fan of Greenpeace but, I don't see a connection.

One is the tragic loss of local fishermen who catch a relatively small amount of fish and are and get in trouble if that land more than their quota. The other is an action to try and stop the gigantic factory trawlers that aren't controlled and hoover up all life with no respect for quotas, sustainability or anything but profit. I sympathise with the one and support the other.
 

Bristolfashion

Well-known member
Joined
19 May 2018
Messages
6,234
Visit site
In a democracy we all choose to stop that kind of thing, or choose not to as we wish.

People die on the roads in massive numbers, it wouldn't be good for a handful of people to block roads with rocks. Gazzilions of people are killed by smoking and obesity, we don't want a handful of people to start knocking down newsagents.

In a totalitarian state direct action is fair enough, not in a liberal democracy.

Of course in this case Greenpeace are doing the polluting. If/when Fishing is banned the sea will be back to its natural state quickly. (After fishing was suspended for WW2 they found the sea heaving with fish - that was only 6 years.) Greenpeace's pollution will be there for tens of thousands of years. (Unless you believe their claim that they will be recovering the rocks when they get what they want.) So direct action against Greenpeace to stop them polluting? Did you support that last time it happened, or did you think it would be better to follow the law? Your home is built on a bit of land that used to be natural at one point? Should direct action be taken against you and your property?
Well, I have tried to make this discussion less personal and have avoided saying whether I support this particular Greenpeace action.

One of the issues is that, with certain species / habitats, once it has gone, it's gone forever. Our democracy has its limitations when dealing with the rights of the non-human part of our biosphere or, indeed, future generations. Do we have the right to deny our children clean air and water or to see a rhinoceros or hen harrier?

When we look through the lens of history, we see that some actions that were illegal at the time are now considered reasonable or even heroic; should we condemn the suffragettes, early unionists, anti-slavery groups or those that sheltered Jews, Catholics and the like at certain times?

Of course, some direct action is legal. Various protests & suchlike do also achieve change.

Whether a particular action should be taken will depend on a complex set of considerations including the threat presented, the dangers involved and, indeed, the legality of the action.
 

Daydream believer

Well-known member
Joined
6 Oct 2012
Messages
21,279
Location
Southminster, essex
Visit site
If a lobster pot can disable the RNs new aircraft carrier, then I reckon a 200 metre 4 inch floating line rapidly laid across the front of the greenpeace ship would put an end to their schenanigans.
I am surprised that the Iranians have not tried it in the gulf. Once around a ships prop it would do all sorts of damage to prop & the shaft. Not cost a lot either. Place a wire through the middle to stop it being cut too easily so it gets well tangled
 

Gary Fox

N/A
Joined
31 Oct 2020
Messages
2,027
Visit site
If a lobster pot can disable the RNs new aircraft carrier, then I reckon a 200 metre 4 inch floating line rapidly laid across the front of the greenpeace ship would put an end to their schenanigans.
I am surprised that the Iranians have not tried it in the gulf. Once around a ships prop it would do all sorts of damage to prop & the shaft. Not cost a lot either. Place a wire through the middle to stop it being cut too easily so it gets well tangled
If it was floating line, it wouldn't be near the prop.
You are having fantasies about disabling a ship and endangering her crew.
 

Robin

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
18,069
Location
high and dry on north island
Visit site
Good to hear it can all grow back after being scraped.
Unlike the Gib Government (I think..?) we have a navy and a couple of fisheries protection vessels, who could end this problem next week, if the UK government possessed a pair of cojones between them.
and weren't busy elsewhere with illegals drug smugglers etc. plus amongst the fishing culprits will likely be French, Belgian Spanish and other boats, that should set our brave gun boats against the wicked EU.

As a fish lover I much prefer to ensure buying only from sustainable sources and especially to choose hand dived scallops. But, FLM, fisherfolk lives matter, and Greenpeace are putting lives at serious risk, for many who just think it is all just a jolly green caper. :mad:
 

capnsensible

Well-known member
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Messages
46,701
Location
Atlantic
Visit site
Did not divers have to go down & disengage a rope shortly after the ship left port on a trial. It was part of the BBC programme about the commissioning was it not. It also included a bit about the design problem with the thrust block which had to be reinforced.
No. The divers checked that there was no debris on the prop during contractor sea trials. The shaft seal leak was sorted. Nothing to do with lobster pots.
 

capnsensible

Well-known member
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Messages
46,701
Location
Atlantic
Visit site
and weren't busy elsewhere with illegals drug smugglers etc. plus amongst the fishing culprits will likely be French, Belgian Spanish and other boats, that should set our brave gun boats against the wicked EU.

As a fish lover I much prefer to ensure buying only from sustainable sources and especially to choose hand dived scallops. But, FLM, fisherfolk lives matter, and Greenpeace are putting lives at serious risk, for many who just think it is all just a jolly green caper. :mad:
Not sure how it's putting lives at risk? I thought they are preventing illegal dredging of the sea bed? Doesn't stop other types of fishing.

Still, if illegal fishing continues despite being warned exactly where the blocks are, they can practice the IRPCS lights for 'my nets are fast on an obstruction' .
 

Robin

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
18,069
Location
high and dry on north island
Visit site
Not sure how it's putting lives at risk? I thought they are preventing illegal dredging of the sea bed? Doesn't stop other types of fishing.

Still, if illegal fishing continues despite being warned exactly where the blocks are, they can practice the IRPCS lights for 'my nets are fast on an obstruction' . warned how, when and where notices to mariners or jolly rogers comic?

But any trawler who bottom trawls albeit illegally, and gets his nets caught is at risk of a roll over catastrophic capsize. judge jury and executioner all determined by a Greenpeace anarchist's hanging posse.
 

capnsensible

Well-known member
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Messages
46,701
Location
Atlantic
Visit site
But any trawler who bottom trawls albeit illegally, and gets his nets caught is at risk of a roll over catastrophic capsize. judge jury and executioner all determined by a Greenpeace anarchist's hanging posse.
Stay safe. Don't fish illegally.

We got fish farms on our coast. Last year, during one night, some likely lads went out in a motorboat and nicked fish. So much so that their boat capsized. They were rescued by......the marine police.

Moral. Don't nick fish.
 

geem

Well-known member
Joined
27 Apr 2006
Messages
8,043
Location
Caribbean
Visit site
In a democracy we all choose to stop that kind of thing, or choose not to as we wish.

People die on the roads in massive numbers, it wouldn't be good for a handful of people to block roads with rocks. Gazzilions of people are killed by smoking and obesity, we don't want a handful of people to start knocking down newsagents.

In a totalitarian state direct action is fair enough, not in a liberal democracy.

Of course in this case Greenpeace are doing the polluting. If/when Fishing is banned the sea will be back to its natural state quickly. (After fishing was suspended for WW2 they found the sea heaving with fish - that was only 6 years.) Greenpeace's pollution will be there for tens of thousands of years. (Unless you believe their claim that they will be recovering the rocks when they get what they want.) So direct action against Greenpeace to stop them polluting? Did you support that last time it happened, or did you think it would be better to follow the law? Your home is built on a bit of land that used to be natural at one point? Should direct action be taken against you and your property?
What are they polluting with? Raw sewage? Crude oil? Plastic? Dangerous chemicals? Oh no, wait a minute, its rocks??
 

siwhi

Active member
Joined
21 Nov 2012
Messages
252
Location
Trstena, Slovakia
Visit site
In a democracy we all choose to stop that kind of thing, or choose not to as we wish.

People die on the roads in massive numbers, it wouldn't be good for a handful of people to block roads with rocks. Gazzilions of people are killed by smoking and obesity, we don't want a handful of people to start knocking down newsagents.

In a totalitarian state direct action is fair enough, not in a liberal democracy.

Of course in this case Greenpeace are doing the polluting. If/when Fishing is banned the sea will be back to its natural state quickly. (After fishing was suspended for WW2 they found the sea heaving with fish - that was only 6 years.) Greenpeace's pollution will be there for tens of thousands of years. (Unless you believe their claim that they will be recovering the rocks when they get what they want.) So direct action against Greenpeace to stop them polluting? Did you support that last time it happened, or did you think it would be better to follow the law? Your home is built on a bit of land that used to be natural at one point? Should direct action be taken against you and your property?

It is well worth reading the Greenpeace side of things, which explains where, why and how they are taking this action. I think they will stop once a Marine Protected Area becomes a marine protected area.

"Greenpeace will remove the boulder barrier from the Dogger Bank if the UK Government provides credible commitments to properly protect the area. "
Greenpeace expands boulder barrier in marine protected area as government fails to strengthen safeguards | Greenpeace UK

"We immediately notified the relevant marine authorities (Marine and Coastguard Agency) as to the precise location of the boulders bordering the protected area. This will ensure their positions are accurately recorded on marine charts so other ships can safely navigate the area."
Greenpeace blocks destructive fishing with 'boulder barrier' off the coast of Brighton
 

Robin

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
18,069
Location
high and dry on north island
Visit site
It is well worth reading the Greenpeace side of things, which explains where, why and how they are taking this action. I think they will stop once a Marine Protected Area becomes a marine protected area.

"Greenpeace will remove the boulder barrier from the Dogger Bank if the UK Government provides credible commitments to properly protect the area. "
Greenpeace expands boulder barrier in marine protected area as government fails to strengthen safeguards | Greenpeace UK

"We immediately notified the relevant marine authorities (Marine and Coastguard Agency) as to the precise location of the boulders bordering the protected area. This will ensure their positions are accurately recorded on marine charts so other ships can safely navigate the area."
Greenpeace blocks destructive fishing with 'boulder barrier' off the coast of Brighton


Are you aware how long before those positions are actually marked on charts?
 

Black Sheep

Well-known member
Joined
13 Nov 2005
Messages
1,988
Location
East coast, UK
Visit site
But any trawler who bottom trawls albeit illegally, and gets his nets caught is at risk of a roll over catastrophic capsize. judge jury and executioner all determined by a Greenpeace anarchist's hanging posse.
I have some sympathy with your "judge jury and executioner" comment, but I can't help wondering whether the risk is being over-egged.

My first thought was that it's not just "don't fish illegally", but also "take normal seamanship precautions". Those precautions would include not deploying nets in an area of known seabed obstructions.

So the question is, how known are they? The claim from Greenpeace is "We immediately notified the relevant marine authorities (Marine and Coastguard Agency) as to the precise location of the boulders bordering the protected area.". If the rocks were creating a serious hazard to navigation, or were creating a danger to fishing, I would expect something on the MSIs and Navtex. But as far as I can make out, nothing.

So why no Navtex warnings? Three possibilities spring to mind:
1) Greenpeace haven't notified any positions to MCA. But I would expect a rapid rebuttal from the MCA if that were the case.
2) MCA haven't got to it yet. Maybe they're verifying the positions and depths?
3) MCA have evaluated the information, and decided that there isn't a significant risk to navigation or fishing.
 
Top