The NAvy WERE THERE at kidnap of Lynn Rival

[FullCircle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ed-yacht-couple-Paul-and-Rachel-Chandler.html


I just cant believe wht I have just read.
The Navy were within 50 feet of the Lynn Rival when the pirates sped away.
I know there were risks of life, but surely this cant be right at all.
It was an RFA, but had a helicopter and troops on board. HMS Cumberland was 2 hours away.

Well, should the Navy have been empowered to do something?

 

[flaming]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ed-yacht-couple-Paul-and-Rachel-Chandler.html


I just cant believe wht I have just read.
The Navy were within 50 feet of the Lynn Rival when the pirates sped away.
I know there were risks of life, but surely this cant be right at all.
It was an RFA, but had a helicopter and troops on board. HMS Cumberland was 2 hours away.

Well, should the Navy have been empowered to do something?

So you would have opened fire with a crew of merchant navy types? Not a fully trained Naval crew.
Suspect it would have been different if the warship had caught up in time.

 

[FullCircle]

So you would have opened fire with a crew of merchant navy types? Not a fully trained Naval crew.
Suspect it would have been different if the warship had caught up in time.

They could have shadowed them for the 2 hours at 50yds. If the hostages had been harmed in any way, they could have taken out the pirates.
What is the point of a ransom demand from a dead pirate?
The RFA was at least as well armed as the pirate vessel, with air support and trained troops on board.

If the pirates are seditiously hunted down and 'neutralised' on a permanent basis, thier business case would look far less appealing. At the moment they haven't actually got to kill anyone to get their way, just threaten it. Money for old rope really.

 

[webcraft]

Spike Milligan said once . . .

.

Don't forget, the Royal Navy can still send a gumboot.

- W

 

[David_Jersey]

At least the RN didn't surrender to fellas in a speedboat this time.

Which for the modern RN counts as a VICTORY!

 

[Chris_Robb]

They could have shadowed them for the 2 hours at 50yds. If the hostages had been harmed in any way, they could have taken out the pirates.
What is the point of a ransom demand from a dead pirate?
The RFA was at least as well armed as the pirate vessel, with air support and trained troops on board.

If the pirates are seditiously hunted down and 'neutralised' on a permanent basis, thier business case would look far less appealing. At the moment they haven't actually got to kill anyone to get their way, just threaten it. Money for old rope really.

Not that I am on the pirates side, but these guys were apparently first timers, and had resorted to piracy mostly becasue they were fisherman, and international fishing (in their coastal waters) has finished off the stocks.

So perhaps its not just a question of shooting the poo out of them, but understanding why they started.

HOWEVER - perhaps the navy should have taken out the mothership before the Chandlers had borded it.

 

[DannyB]

I wish I knew the true picture, I've heard that fishstocks are booming because nobody is fishing there.

 

[halfway]

Why continue the propaganda?

Why do people on this site continue to spout the propaganda supplied by these criminals. There are two uses of hostages. Think about it. The more new information released the more the second choice becomes reality.

Imagine an ex-east coast UK fisherman that had grown up in the trade and then had his only known work removed from him. If he took up arms, and took Hull marina manager hostage using children and families on his boat, as cover, and demanded millions; would you feel sorry for him? If it was found out later that the arms were supplied by a higher organization that financed the operation, and fuel, for a large cut of the money, would you feel sorry for him? The whole point of the world arms trade is to find people that have been trodden into the dirt and give them power. You do not expect the traders or terrorists to actually fire a gun? Looking for the disaffected is the key to terrorism. If it was not that fisherman, it would have been his friend the farmer with no water. There is always someone who thinks they are at the bottom of the pile. But only some will turn to crime.

 

[Kermit]

This does not surprise me at all. Our Government has no interest in protecting it's own citizens wherever in the world they may be. They'd rather sit back and do nothing and then claim that their hands are tied by the Human Rights Act.

If it we're me being taken hostage I'd rather they tried to save me, whatever the outcome.

Doing nothing is little more than appeasement and just encourages others to see what they can get away with.

Do the entire country a favour, stick Brown, Mandleson and the rest of them in a small craft off Somalia.

 

[snowleopard]

I am speechless at the spinelessness of our and other western navies. What's the point in putting ships there if they are going to sit there and let the pirates go about their business unhindered? They may just have been an RFA but they still had more than enough capability to deal with a few thugs in an open boat.

Is it the government telling them not to do anything to help or the local command taking the decisions?

Do you think if I went down to Plymouth in my dinghy they'd let me nick a frigate?

 

[Chris_Robb]

Why do people on this site continue to spout the propaganda supplied by these criminals. There are two uses of hostages. Think about it. The more new information released the more the second choice becomes reality.

Imagine an ex-east coast UK fisherman that had grown up in the trade and then had his only known work removed from him. If he took up arms, and took Hull marina manager hostage using children and families on his boat, as cover, and demanded millions; would you feel sorry for him? If it was found out later that the arms were supplied by a higher organization that financed the operation, and fuel, for a large cut of the money, would you feel sorry for him? The whole point of the world arms trade is to find people that have been trodden into the dirt and give them power. You do not expect the traders or terrorists to actually fire a gun? Looking for the disaffected is the key to terrorism. If it was not that fisherman, it would have been his friend the farmer with no water. There is always someone who thinks they are at the bottom of the pile. But only some will turn to crime.

One difference - UK fisherman fished his own stock out, someone nicked his - if of course that is true. I suspect that fish stocks will recover radiply as no one is fishing here any more.

I don't disagree but putting another view as advocate.

 

[sarabande]

Does anyone know what happened to the Chandlers' yacht ? Prize crew put aboard to sail back to the Sea Shells ?

 

[halfway]

Frigates for all.

"Do you think if I went down to Plymouth in my dinghy they'd let me nick a frigate? "

Yes, they would even drop down a ladder if you took along 20 children.

What is wrong, is you would never even dream of hiding behind another person, or putting a gun to the head of an innocent. So you can not see why the navy will not fire. But to them human shields are essential.

Say you go to Gatwick and take along twenty 5 year olds. Now tell the kids that the armed police at the door is hiding sweets for them and they should try their best to get them out of his pockets. 1 2 3 go. All you have to do then is walk up with a knife, and take the gun. The police will not fire.

OK if you were caught, seeing as it is the UK, you probably would not see daylight again. But then they do not have that deterrent.

 

[footsoldier]

Not that I am on the pirates side, but these guys were apparently first timers, and had resorted to piracy mostly becasue they were fisherman, and international fishing (in their coastal waters) has finished off the stocks.

So perhaps its not just a question of shooting the shit out of them, but understanding why they started.

That has all the intellectual and moral authority of the argument that says we should not be too strict with muggers because the poor little dears come from broken homes in socially-deprived areas.

The news about the Navy does not surprise me at all. On the original thread on the kidnapping, I queried where Nelson's finest were and immediately got flamed by a member of the elfensafety brigade who felt that any intervention would be far too risky as there was a danger someone might get shot. That's the spirit that won us an Empire! Contrast our inaction with the French, who have intervened (successfully) with naval/special forces assets whenever possible.

Last I heard was that the victims were being held somewhere inland. So now, where's the SAS?

 

[David_Jersey]

IMO the country would be better served if the RN remained in port (somewhere safe, like central Birmingham ), at least then no one would know they were no longer a fighting force..........rather than wandering the world being a national embarassement every time they encounter any hostiles.

A bit unfair given that the vessel concerned was not a "proper" warship? I don't think so - you are either in the Navy or you aint, it was armed, even had a helicopter and a size advantage with a "proper" warship 2 hours away (which also would have had a helicopter - so maybe under 1 hour flying time?). At the least they could have sunk the skiffs, maybe have rammed and dismasted the yacht ......or even tackled the mother ship

Of course no guarantee that the hostages would emerge unscathed, but if I was sitting onboard a captured yacht I would settle for a fighting chance.......a strange world where if I was in those circumstances I would prefer anyone but the RN to be steaming over the horizon.

Maybe it's time to rename the RN? to more reflect it's modern purpose, capabilities and ethos.

 

[Clarky]

Poor or no decision making by those in charge,disgraceful ...

 

[Chris_Robb]

I am speechless at the spinelessness of our and other western navies. What's the point in putting ships there if they are going to sit there and let the pirates go about their business unhindered? They may just have been an RFA but they still had more than enough capability to deal with a few thugs in an open boat.

Is it the government telling them not to do anything to help or the local command taking the decisions?

Do you think if I went down to Plymouth in my dinghy they'd let me nick a frigate?

The french seem the only ones with any go about them.

 

[Woodlouse]

It was an RFA ship. The article makes no mention of troops being onboard. The navys statement is fair, a crew of 75 merchant seamen would not have the small arms training required to take out the pirates without seriously risking the lives of the hostages.

You really can't expect a merchant crew to carry out a task that you'd expect to send special forces to do.

 

[Clarky]

"Do you think if I went down to Plymouth in my dinghy they'd let me nick a frigate? "

Yes, they would even drop down a ladder if you took along 20 children.

What is wrong, is you would never even dream of hiding behind another person, or putting a gun to the head of an innocent. So you can not see why the navy will not fire. But to them human shields are essential.

Say you go to Gatwick and take along twenty 5 year olds. Now tell the kids that the armed police at the door is hiding sweets for them and they should try their best to get them out of his pockets. 1 2 3 go. All you have to do then is walk up with a knife, and take the gun. The police will not fire.

OK if you were caught, seeing as it is the UK, you probably would not see daylight again. But then they do not have that deterrent.

What a load of complete *******s !!!

 

[halfway]

Clarky

Clarky: Think what you like. It is a free country. But it is good to know the ability to discuss is alive and well on this forum.

Do not let real accounts get in the way. The original people traffickers, across to Aden, used boat loads of innocents to avoid the problem of being fired on. Not that it stopped one yachtie, who just filled them all indiscriminately with lead.