".......Escort personnel will be armed. The exclusion zone shall have a 250m radius around the vessel, or to the limits of navigable water, whichever is closer.
4. When the zone is activated all vessels underway, except those involved in the escort or specifically authorised by the escort commander, are to remain clear of the exclusion zone.
5. Vessels which enter the exclusion zone will, after being warned by at least two of the following methods; radio, flashing light, and voice, be deemed to have the intention of committing a hostile act against the warship being escorted....."
Statement says:
"...I am not in the habit of threatening law abiding mariners in my area with firearms. IF the exclusion zone was introduced, and let me reiterate that would only be in an exceptional circumstance, then it would be announced well in advance. The Police would be responsible for keeping the area around the ship clear by patrolling the area. If a mariner inadvertently strayed into the area he would not be fired upon, he would be intercepted by a patrol boat and asked to leave. If he refused to, he would be arrested and prosecuted...."
Do I detect a change in tone? Well at least we now know what happens to people who intend to commit hostile acts against HM ships. The police come and arrest them.
Stupid reporting by the press, who as usual had failed to do their homework.
LNTM is merely a re-issue of a LNTM issued in 2002, with a slight change required due to an update in another peice of aligned legislation that was quoted. The same data was also promulgated for the Fleet Review.
64/02 gave QHM the option to define a zone "500 wide", latest notice has the zone as "250m radius". So an equally invalid headline might have been: "New Harbourmaster drops his guard despite terror threat"
We know how inaccurate this story is: what does that say about the general standard ?
In all the stories in papers that I have actually experienced the true facts, I have yet to see one that bears any real resemblance to the reality. That may be why I rarely bother with a paper other than an occasional glance at page 3 to check if I am still alive /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I was doing some work for a Government department once which was often the focus of people's displeasure over sensitive matters. In their main office I was surprised as anyone was allowed to talk to the news media if they phoned, as they often did. There was only one rule the staff had to follow - "Remember, all they want is a story. You don't have to give them the facts".
The media (especially the journalists) are usually dead lazy too. I was running one part of a country wide project that had alot of opposition from environmentalists. One day one of the other managers asked how we always got good press in the cities having sites I was responsible for. Told him "Well, once a month we get a professional photographer in and get him to take alot of photographs of the things we would like to see go in the papers. Then the site manager writes some copy about all the things we would like reported. Then he invites the media down for morning tea and gives them the photos and the copy, and thats what ends up in the papers."
Not sure I'd want to give one of the police launches in Portsmouth an excuse for coming near me. They seem to be a tad agressive in their driving. They almost had me overboard last week.