TheCrimsonVicar
N/A
Simps my friend.
1. Money laundering legislation.
2. Proceeds of crime legislation.
3. Anti-terrorism legislation
Take your pick.
Last edited:
Paul and rachel chandler- a solution?
- Thread starter philwebb
- Start date
Simps my friend.
1. Money laundering legislation.
2. Proceeds of crime legislation.
3. Anti-terrorism legislation
Take your pick.
Sounds highly improbable,how come they never got to grips with Mark Thatcher?
I would have thought that a determined band of independent souls could manage it.
TheCrimsonVicar
N/A
Stupid question.
clyst
Well-Known Member
If the Chandlers are in such a dire situation can someone please explain why the family hasn,t raised and paid the pirates ??? £100,000 isnt a great sum to raise . If a member of my family was in a similar situation I'd simply sell my house or at least remorgage ....... Problem solved !!
I can't believe that there are so many naive and gulible people on this forum.
I can't believe that there are so many naive and gulible people on this forum.
Last edited:
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Well, for a start it would appear that a ransom payment of £100k has already been raised but could not be paid for some reason.
I am of course one of those naive and gullible people to whom you glibly refer. I naively and gullibly suspect that you know nothing at all about the Chandlers' personal finances or the financial positions of any of their relatives and are just making smug assumptions. Selling someone else's house is, I would imagine, not a terribly easy thing to do legally.
- W
webcraft
Well-Known Member
.
Cue glib smart ar*e comment from Crimson . . .
- W
Cue glib smart ar*e comment from Crimson . . .
- W
Dos'nt seem stupid to me,if they could'nt get to grips with him then why should they get so aerated about paying private ransoms to pirates?
I agree it looks odd to me.
Can't be paid for what reason webby?Dodgy deals are done across boarders all round the world all the time.....are we really supposed to believe that there are no enterprising bods in this Country?
armchairsailor
Well-Known Member
I suspect the family are staying quiet because the Foreign Office has told them that the best thing would be to keep schtum. I would imagine too that the family are being kept well up to date with things behind the scenes, and what we know about the workings of the Govt in this matter are merely the tip of the iceberg.
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
The Guardian article doesn't explicitly state that. Reads to me that the oddly-named Merchant Maritime Warfare Centre negotiated the £100k deal, but expected the govt to pay it; paying ransoms is something the govt cannot and will not do.
As you said, not a clearly-written article; it seems almost to be a gripe-piece about some sketchy ransom-broker not being able to make a quick buck off the Chandlers' plight.
samwise
Well-Known Member
Any chance that the guardian are Conservative?
No chance matey!
If it comes to which paper is telling the truth, I'd take the Sun or anything else before the Daily Mail.
clyst
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify a few points webby.
! I have little sympathy with the chandlers ...... They set sail being advised not to . Not the brightest of things to do knowing the consequences if they were taken hostage .
2. I'm not suggesting that the chandler's house is sold but the family raising the money . I cant believe no one in the family hasn't property that would realise £100,000 by way of morgage or even more drastic by selling after all we are not talking raising "bail" we are susposingly talking about saving TWO relatives lives !! .
If the family are not prepared to pull out all the stops to raise the money why expect the public to ??
3 What has the government got to do with the ransom payment ??? If it were my relatives I wouldn't give a toss about the gov. I'd find a way to pay the money if I thought it would gain their release.
2Tizwoz
Well-Known Member
The BBC are reporting that special forces were standing by to rescue the Chandlers but someone in Whitehall couldn't make a decision.
They don't say who couldn't decide.
They don't say who couldn't decide.
Blue5
Well-Known Member
The BBC are reporting that special forces were standing by to rescue the Chandlers but someone in Whitehall couldn't make a decision.
They don't say who couldn't decide.
Well if you expect either of those two you are dilusional, they would have to phone a freind in the White House first to ask permission.............
fergie_mac66
Well-Known Member
They probably couldn't decide which of them should make the decision !!The BBC are reporting that special forces were standing by to rescue the Chandlers but someone in Whitehall couldn't make a decision.
They don't say who couldn't decide.
duncan_m
Well-Known Member
The whole thing is very concerning.
deuc02
Well-Known Member
And I can't believe there are so many idiots such as your good self. That's an incredibly narrow minded view you are exhibiting. I think that the time to use a statement such as "If the Chandlers are in such a dire situation" came and went a long time ago.
Magaz97
Well-Known Member
hmmm.....I know what you mean!