Should Chandlers sell their story? - Do not publish details of release, family urge

[DownWest]

' The apparent antipathy of the UK gov' ..They are in a cleft stick, you cannot admit to negociating with pirates. So what else? Turn a blind eye to some aid being diverted? No win. Send in the SAS? Not a hope in that area.
I knew a negotiator in the S. American mess. He sat in a a hotel and waited for the call. They wanted X, his job was to get it down to some figure the relatives could afford to pay.
Purely commercial, everbody knew the odds. The police were in on it, for a cut.
The insurance cos. are paying mega bucks at regular intervals after the demands are negociated down for the commercial ships. I wonder if the yacht market is so attractive now.

 

[steverow]

Lack of Action

Lets not forget that there are hundreds of merchant seamen and dozens of vessels still holed up in Somalia.
There is a muti-national anti-piracy force out there, UK,EU, American, Russian etc etc.
SURELY we could scrape up a sufficient naval and marine force between us, to go and re-take these vessels and show these renegades that the world means business. Or maybe even blockade their main port.

Steve

 

[DownWest]

The Somalies are not working alone. Lots of big backers see a profit. Info is fed from agents in the canal about likely targets. The one with a cargo of military stuff (tanks) really got the west wound up. And was paid off.

 

[Heckler]

I don't think Dick Durham or any of us have any right to tell the Chandlers what to do. If I was £600k in debt and had lost a year of my life I would certainly be negotiating hard. Apart from anything else, the media will just make it up anyway. It shouldn't in any event be impossible for the Chandlers to still publish a cracking yarn without giving away the details of the process leading up to the eventual release. And let's face it - the only way YM could afford the story would be if it is was free, so maybe Dick is speaking from a company viewpoint here.

I don't think revealing all would make a lot of difference anyway. The truth of the matter is the world's navies and security forces are going to be far too busy in the coming decade to worry about a few lost yachties - we need to accept that as the global security consensus deteriorates further many areas are going to become no-sail zones for all but the most reckless or heavily armed.

Of course, the fee the Chandlers negotiate could always include the ransoming of the yachties currently captured . . . that way we get the press directly supporting Somalian pirates. There is something strangely logical about that.

- W

For once Webbie, I find myself agreeing with you, that money came from somewhere and probably needs paying back. I say let them fill their boots if they want to! He seems a tough old bird, that bit when he was being filmed in captivity where he called them bustards was good!
I would hazard a guess that if he had had access to a gun he wouldnt have hesitated in blowing them away!
Stu

 

[Koeketiene]

Sorry Guapa but your comment above is illogical and makes no sense.

If any other yachts were in the area then these yachts must also by your own definition have been willingly and knowingly placing themselves in harms way.

1. I did not mean yachts in the area at the time - I mean yachts in that area since the attack, now and in the future. South African CHOIZIL was pirated by the same gang that lifted the Chandlers only last week.
2. The Chandlers were briefed by EUMARFOR rep in the Seychelles days BEFORE they sailed, that there had been RECENT attacks in the area they planned to cruise. I wonder if that particular bit will feature in their 'tell all' Max Clifford arranged deal.
There had been an attempted boarding of a merchant vessel in roughly the same position where the Lynn Rival was boarded less than 24 hrs before.

This post from Demonboy in another thread sums it up perfectly.

When the pirates learn that hostages will make money from their ordeal, what do you think that will do to future ransoms? Pirates will take into account 'future earnings'.

As for those who found my remarks rude, inconsiderate and upsetting: there is no polite way of telling people they've acted like ****ing idiots.

 

[shaunksb]

.

SURELY we could scrape up a sufficient naval and marine force between us

Yes we could financially, this would be a good option to deal with this and similar problems around the world.

We haven't yet been able to muster a sufficently strong political allegiance to combine to tackle more of the worlds global problems such as Somalia. Every little geographical clump of the Planet wants its own army and navy.

At least we are starting to share our aircraft carriers.

.

 

[Koeketiene]

The insurance cos. are paying mega bucks at regular intervals after the demands are negociated down for the commercial ships. I wonder if the yacht market is so attractive now.

the average ransom paid out for a merchant vessel is between 7 and 10 mil U$. depending on vessel and cargo value.

For this they face the risk of the vessel being re-taken, a crew revolt, considerable manpower requirement for guarding of the crew and the vessel, ...

Yacht crews are easily moved around and are better 'value for money'. Less manpower required and much less risk involved.

If anything, yachts have just become more attractive targets.

 

[Plomong]

- The Chandlers willingly and knowingly placed themselves in harms way.
- By their actions they not only endangered themselves, but every yacht in the area.

I find any attempt to turn these people into celebrities or the fact that they would benefit from this thing financially, obscene and perverse in the extreme.

The sole role fit for them should be to serve as a warning to others.

Guapa, I'm with you 100% on that.

No publicity, no celebrity, no ransome, no encouragement to others to be "brave" (we'll make it rich later if it DOES happen), or daring (let's get some yachties, they give a good return on investment).

Anything, no matter how small, that in any way aids, encourages or makes piracy possible must be avoided until more HMS Chatham actions persuade the pirates that their future is NOT in piracy.

Plomong

 

[DownWest]

Yes, but yachts will avoid the area (I hope) where as commercial stuff has no choice.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Entirely agree, as I said on a different thread yesterday.

Yes and you didn't answer my question as to how you were so certain that they were warned not to sail in the area where they were captured.

 

[Koeketiene]

Yes and you didn't answer my question as to how you were so certain that they were warned not to sail in the area where they were captured.

Post 25 of this thread - and numerous other places.

 

[sailorman]

- The Chandlers willingly and knowingly placed themselves in harms way.
- By their actions they not only endangered themselves, but every yacht in the area.

I find any attempt to turn these people into celebrities or the fact that they would benefit from this thing financially, obscene and perverse in the extreme.

The sole role fit for them should be to serve as a warning to others.

Fully Agree

 

[longjohnsilver]

1. I did not mean yachts in the area at the time - I mean yachts in that area since the attack, now and in the future. South African CHOIZIL was pirated by the same gang that lifted the Chandlers only last week.
2. The Chandlers were briefed by EUMARFOR rep in the Seychelles days BEFORE they sailed, that there had been RECENT attacks in the area they planned to cruise. I wonder if that particular bit will feature in their 'tell all' Max Clifford arranged deal.
There had been an attempted boarding of a merchant vessel in roughly the same position where the Lynn Rival was boarded less than 24 hrs before.

This post from Demonboy in another thread sums it up perfectly.

When the pirates learn that hostages will make money from their ordeal, what do you think that will do to future ransoms? Pirates will take into account 'future earnings'.

As for those who found my remarks rude, inconsiderate and upsetting: there is no polite way of telling people they've acted like ****ing idiots.

All this "factual" information.

It's actually EUROMARFOR, how do we verify your assertion that the Chandlers were warned by their Seychelles rep just days before the event?

And the in blog featured in Demonboys post the author seems to be confused with his East and West, I quote

"Back in October 2009 all of this piracy data we were collating was available to any sailor who looked for it, and one thing was very clear: the most dangerous area to be sailing was anywhere east of the Seychelles"

whereas unless I am very much mistaken his google map shows that West of the Seychelles to be the main area of piracy.

If the basic facts are wrong how much credibility should we give to anything else that's written?

 

[Koeketiene]

It's actually EUROMARFOR,

Is it really EUMARFOR website

how do we verify your assertion that the Chandlers were warned by their Seychelles rep just days before the event?

Because it's what I do to pay boat bills.

What would satisfiy you? Name, rank and serial number of the officer who briefed them?
It's standard procedure for any yacht clearing out of the Seychelles.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Is it really EUMARFOR website



Because it's what I do to pay boat bills.

What would satisfiy you? Name, rank and serial number of the officer who briefed them?
It's standard procedure for any yacht clearing out of the Seychelles.

Yes something along those lines, presumably there is something written that's verifiable?

I have no idea one way or the other so have no axe to grind whereas you on the other hand appear to speak with authority.

 

[sailorman]

Yes something along those lines, presumably there is something written that's verifiable?

I have no idea one way or the other so have no axe to grind whereas you on the other hand appear to speak with authority.

whereas you on the other hand appear to speak with authority

Thats just wot the man said

 

[longjohnsilver]

EUMARFOR - I stand corrected!!