The Chandlers - More depressing revelations!

I don't believe the daily wail at the best of times. Right now in the run-up to the election they feel it is their duty to do a labour bashing story in every issue.

I think I prefer to 'blame' the pirates.
 
Just imagine what the press would have said if the Chandlers were killed in a rescue along with a pirate or two and some marines!

The papers would have been full of "crisis" "disaster" "bungled" etc etc.

Politically, it's a no win unless you can be near absolutely sure that only the pirates would have died. And even then you would have had the race relations industry round your necks plus Rita Chakrabatee (?) asking why you didnt negotiate and give the pirates a million or two to go away.

I have no doubt that the solution to Somalia will end up with the givernment giving away yet more of our money. It's the only thing they know how to do .
 
EdWingfield said:
I don't believe the daily wail at the best of times. Right now in the run-up to the election they feel it is their duty to do a labour bashing story in every issue.

I think I prefer to 'blame' the pirates.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, if we are going to carry on discussing this please let's not start from the standpoint of an article in the Daily Mail, you cannot believe or take seriously anything they print in that truly depressing rag...
 
EdWingfield said:
I don't believe the daily wail at the best of times. Right now in the run-up to the election they feel it is their duty to do a labour bashing story in every issue.

I think I prefer to 'blame' the pirates.
Click to expand...

Same story has pretty much been run by the Times, also the Observer, and the Guardian. Reading the Mail I can't actually see any reporting inaccuracies. The decision not to act is in my opinion shameful, not sinking the mother ship a bad political move as this would have left the pirates in the small boat with their hostages no where to go and as has been demonstrated before, under those circumstances the chances of a successful outcome would have been higher by an order of magnitude.

Personlly, I would have sunk the mother ship, or at least disabled it.
 
Cliveshep said:
Same story has pretty much been run by the Times, also the Observer, and the Guardian. Reading the Mail I can't actually see any reporting inaccuracies.d it.
Click to expand...

Same story on BBC Radio Cornwall news middle part of last week.

Perhaps if the pirates issue a press statement as well some will beleive it may be true.


Why do we see this negative, it may nay not have happened, lets do nothing attitude these days.



Brian
 
Cliveshep said:
Same story has pretty much been run by the Times, also the Observer, and the Guardian. Reading the Mail I can't actually see any reporting inaccuracies. The decision not to act is in my opinion shameful, not sinking the mother ship a bad political move as this would have left the pirates in the small boat with their hostages no where to go and as has been demonstrated before, under those circumstances the chances of a successful outcome would have been higher by an order of magnitude.

Personlly, I would have sunk the mother ship, or at least disabled it.
Click to expand...

Isn't the fact that the ransom now stands at £100k not £4mil a reporting inaccuracy? That's as far (start of paragraph 3) as I got...
 
As there was no threat to the lives of the Chandlers there is no way they can order an attack on the pirates as, even if it is carried out perfectly, you immediately put them in danger from the pirates who you've now backed into a corner. You only need to look at many past events to realise this a widely accepted and used policy, whether or not I would like to see the pirates try to face marines or better still an S.B.S team.
As pointed out already what if the attack had been ordered and one or more people (hostages or marines) had died? The is not a single person who could say that was the right call given no threat to life exsisted. The odds on this happening must have outweighed the chances of a succesful operation, no matter how brilliant I'm sure it would have been. I do however hope this does not end with the breaking of Britain's "We do not negotiate with terrorists" policy by paying the ransom.

Mr.C
 
EdWingfield said:
I don't believe the daily wail at the best of times. Right now in the run-up to the election they feel it is their duty to do a labour bashing story in every issue.

I think I prefer to 'blame' the pirates.
Click to expand...

you know what guys it what get writing on the forum about the chandlers is what I can't believe ..

once again people are blaming the Mail for what they print OK WE ALL KNOW THE PAPERS SPIN EVERTHING ... but as I said time and time again it wasnt the mail who lied to the british people it was the RN and the british Goverment . the mail is only reporting what most of us know now that B/G and RN have held there hands up at last, tho I bet there still a lot more to come out as yet ..

as for the guys who go on about (any rescue attempt would had endanger the lives of the chandlers ), all they had to do is hole the bow of the mothership and that way the pirates wouldnt be going any where . and NO I don't think they would had kill the hostages (WHY)? because they would be too busy trying to save their lives and also knowing too well that all that was going to happen to them once RN rescue them is be given a boat fuel and food and be sent on there way ..
 
Mr.Completely said:
As pointed out already what if the attack had been ordered and one or more people (hostages or marines) had died?

The is not a single person who could say that was the right call given no threat to life exsisted.
Click to expand...

I would have said right call

(but of course I do not view it being no threat / risk free / "safe" :rolleyes: to be kidnapped and held hostage by Pirates and enroute to a 3rd world mud hut for an uncertain fate measured in months with no hope of the "usual" ransom being paid, getting caught up in the Somali civil war or a tribal / business dispute or even sold / capture by fundamentalists or simply from disease / illness............but I appreciate that for others YMMV :rolleyes:).

Far abroad really ain't like the UK - IMO not better or worse, just with very different rules. or none at all :rolleyes:

The naivete on these threads is more disturbing than the Pirates :(
 
If the Daily Mail story, from a "source", and a very similar one in the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/6792746/Bob-Ainsworth-had-two-opportunities-to-save-British-yacht-couple.html are correct, then my concern would be that this is yet another example of military decisicions being made by well informed but basically amateur ministers, probably mainly concerned with political outcom, rather than by commanders in the field. Successful operations, such as this, often rely on very rapid assesment and action. Calling London and getting a minister's go ahead surely negates this. Would one expect an RNLI coxswain to call Poole to get clearance for a risky rescue?
 
David_Jersey said:
I would have said right call

(but of course I do not view it being no threat / risk free / "safe" :rolleyes: to be kidnapped and held hostage by Pirates and enroute to a 3rd world mud hut for an uncertain fate measured in months with no hope of the "usual" ransom being paid, getting caught up in the Somali civil war or a tribal / business dispute or even sold / capture by fundamentalists or simply from disease / illness............but I appreciate that for others YMMV :rolleyes:).

Far abroad really ain't like the UK - IMO not better or worse, just with very different rules. or none at all :rolleyes:

The naivete on these threads is more disturbing than the Pirates :(
Click to expand...

David: I'm sorry, I feel I stumbled over my words a little in that message. As far as I'm aware Somali pirates have not injured they're captives at all as of yet and this is why many governments are powerless to undertake any action to free them as it would appear to lack justification. I didn't say there was no risk/threat nor it was safe etc... just that they were not at risk of losing there lives at that moment. Those areas of Somalia are reliant on this piracy and know the value of the hostages they take, so I believe they are actually a lot more caring of them than many other hostage takers, it's finacial not emotional. And if it had gone wrong and people had died you really would've been stating that an assault was the right call? I have to admire the bold honesty but think the majority of the public would give a different reaction.

Captn D: I appreciate what you are saying in the respect of the people that make the decisions are probably not the ones that should, however I would have to disagree with the best option being immediate action. Only because immediate plans are very rudimentry and lack in planning and intelligance, in the Iranian Embassy siege for example the first plan formulated on arriving was to simply batter down the front door and windows, only to later find said windows were bullet proof and the charges they would've used initially wouldn't have done the job and thus left them in a very very difficult position. It was 5 days of planning that allowed this intervention to go as well as it did and even then it was a long way from perfect.
 
Mr.Completely said:
this is why many governments are powerless to undertake any action to free them as it would appear to lack justification.
Click to expand...

In 2008 the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1838 that allowed countries to use "military force" to repress acts of piracy along the Somalian coastline.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9467.doc.htm

Simplified version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...esolution_1838

Bosun Higgs said:
Just imagine what the press would have said if the Chandlers were killed in a rescue along with a pirate or two and some marines!

The papers would have been full of "crisis" "disaster" "bungled" etc etc.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the papers decrying two recent hostage rescues where two soldiers and one hostage died.

In any hostage rescue the hostages lives are at risk the moment you attempt a rescue. Recently, in North Afghanistan Cpl Harrison, of the Parachute Regiment, died during an operation to rescue New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell and his interpreter Sultan Munadi.

Mr Munadi was killed in the crossfire but Mr Farrell was successfully freed.

Before that, Bombardier Brad Tinnion was killed in Sierre Leone rescuing the Royal Irish Rangers who had been captured.

Rescues are hazardous, but in the long run they act as a robust deterrent and anything is better than watching the perpetrators going about their business unmolested.

But then, this has been gone over and over again in other threads in MOBO, Scuttlebutt and The Lounge.
 
Cliveshep said:
Personlly, I would have sunk the mother ship, or at least disabled it.
Click to expand...
sailaboutvic said:
as for the guys who go on about (any rescue attempt would had endanger the lives of the chandlers ), all they had to do is hole the bow of the mothership and that way the pirates wouldnt be going any where .
Click to expand...

What about the 21 crew of the Kota Wajar - their lives not worth as much as two British lives? And who would reimburse the owners of the ship and the cargo? The ransom is cheaper.
 
MajorCatastrophe has summarised what a lot of us have written and feel. To those that talk about the value of the life of hostages, I entirely agree BUT I take the view that handled sensibly, I doubt there would have been much if any, loss of life. Another poster mentioned disabling the mother ship with a shot through the hull and in my opinion that was the way to go because if I was a pirate several hundred miles offshore aboard a sinking pirate boat, the last thing on my mind would be to upset my only possible rescuers by spitefully killing hostages. I'd be more inclined to fully cooperate with the only people able to save my skin and indiscriminately killing hostages wouldn't help myself there.

Cheers, Brian
 
Cruiser2B said:
What about the 21 crew of the Kota Wajar - their lives not worth as much as two British lives? And who would reimburse the owners of the ship and the cargo? The ransom is cheaper.
Click to expand...


every life is the same as the next so you can stop there ..

GOD they didnt have to sink the bloody ship all that need to be done was to disable it . stop it for going any way ..

ok your on a ship going no where , now what .. not much option left to you is there ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top