Reliance again!

[Tranona]

As i pointed out previously, most of their work appears to be deliveries away from the UK, probably because the clients know nothing about what has been going on in the UK.

The clients must have their heads in the sand. If you Google Reliance you will find both their old website of the company he dissolved and the new incarnation . However the first page is dominated by the BBC and Cornish reports of the court case and the judgement against him, plus the BBC programme (Inside Out I think) that featured him - being very evasive when cornered by the reporter in a supermarket car park. I seem to remember there is a county court judgement against him for non payment of fines and compensation.

Personally doubt that there will be any official action through parliament. As the minister says. if the events occur outside the UK on a non Red ensign vessel then MCA are powerless. If the people involved are self employed there is little in employment law that will help, and to cap it all maritime law generally puts the onus directly on the skipper's shoulders whether to sail or not.

It is this lack of regulatory framework that allows him to continue to operate in the way he does. The only things that will stop him are clients refusing to contract with him, or skippers and crew refusing to work for him. Does not seem likely that either will happen.

 

[john john]

Getting back to the 60ft catamaran and the idiotically dangerous delivery: I just heard that the captain was a novice. Pascale Veronice (?). It was his first delivery as skipper. Not only that, but he was unpaid. This is classic Reliance .... find someone young enough and foolish enough, set them off into dangerous waters without support, then call it professional yacht delivery.

I'm grateful to those who have contributed to this thread. It threatened to become just another moan about how rubbish the Royal Navy are, but has actually produced some interesting thoughts and responses.

 

[BlueSkyNick]

When I wrote to Messrs Penning and Cox in December, I also copied in my local MP. He responded the same evening, and we are meeting for a coffee tomorrow morning !

Mr Penning's office responded that he had moved on from the Shipping Minister position, and my enquiry had been forwarded to his successor - of course, I have heard nothing.

I dont really expect my own MP to get involved in the Irving case, as it is not in his constituency and he has better things to do, but if he can a least prod the Shipping Minister to take another look at it, it will be worth the price of a coffee !

 

[BlueSkyNick]

Just an update following a cup of coffee with my MP.

I now have a letter personally signed by Stephen Hammond, Sec of State for Transport, basically saying that after the Commons debate, discussions took place between DoT, the Anstess family, their own MP, the Met Police and the FBI! Hammond says he has followed the matter up and undertaken to provide an update on any further developments.

Whilst I do not genuinely expect to hear anything further, nor has the matter completely gone away just yet.

 

[Seajet]

Just an update following a cup of coffee with my MP.

I now have a letter personally signed by Stephen Hammond, Sec of State for Transport, basically saying that after the Commons debate, discussions took place between DoT, the Anstess family, their own MP, the Met Police and the FBI! Hammond says he has followed the matter up and undertaken to provide an update on any further developments.

Whilst I do not genuinely expect to hear anything further, nor has the matter completely gone away just yet.

Well done to you Sir, Hat Off for not letting the matter slide.

 

[Sybarite]

Although international law is often referred to. There is in practical reality no such thing. There is no one who has the authority to enforce anything on the high seas.

.

Not strictly true. UNCLOS :

Article 110
Right of visit
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by
treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than
a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96,
is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting
that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag
State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship
is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed
to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under
the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after
the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on
board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.
3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship
boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated
for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.