Clarky
Well-Known Member
Dear Toad,
Its quite obvious anger against the buffoon in charge was the motivation for the leak ,and this is often the case.
Its called "whistleblowing" and its certainly caught out Mr Stanhope...
The NAvy WERE THERE at kidnap of Lynn Rival
- Thread starter FullCircle
- Start date
Dear Toad,
Its quite obvious anger against the buffoon in charge was the motivation for the leak ,and this is often the case.
Its called "whistleblowing" and its certainly caught out Mr Stanhope...
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
Why not? Toad does.
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
Well I don't. If you can't hold a debate without resorting to personal comments and insults then you shouldn't really be talking.
sailaboutvic
Well-Known Member
it seen that toad and wood louse don't like getting some of there own treatment , being bullied into shutting up , maybe now you know how other guys felt on this thread when they were trying to have thier say .
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
Is that how you see someone expressing a different opinion of the situation? If you like, have a trawl through the thread and find the times i've used bully tactics in an attempt to prove a point.
sailaboutvic
Well-Known Member
yes every one is
Every one is entitle to their opinion , we have freedom of speech in the UK up to now although the way things are going who know for how long , what I object to is that there some on here that can’t take being disagree with and the only way they can deal with it is by bullies other into keeping silence and if that don’t work , then they start spinning it , they should have a career in politics .
How can any one on here defend the RN and our Government when their out and out lied to us , it wasn’t the news papers they lied although we all know they very good at spinning the truth , it wasn't a crew member , it was the RN who said they found the yacht drifting with no one on board . It that straight forward . Forget the in and out and the why and when's , can any one put there hand on there heart and defend them after that and remember they did it more then the one time .. it make you think there a lot more to it and it wouldnt suprise me in time to come we going to find out a lot untruth as been told ..
Yes I do think someone should be removed from office over this be it a some over paid MP or some dest ridding sea lord ..
Every one is entitle to their opinion , we have freedom of speech in the UK up to now although the way things are going who know for how long , what I object to is that there some on here that can’t take being disagree with and the only way they can deal with it is by bullies other into keeping silence and if that don’t work , then they start spinning it , they should have a career in politics .
How can any one on here defend the RN and our Government when their out and out lied to us , it wasn’t the news papers they lied although we all know they very good at spinning the truth , it wasn't a crew member , it was the RN who said they found the yacht drifting with no one on board . It that straight forward . Forget the in and out and the why and when's , can any one put there hand on there heart and defend them after that and remember they did it more then the one time .. it make you think there a lot more to it and it wouldnt suprise me in time to come we going to find out a lot untruth as been told ..
Yes I do think someone should be removed from office over this be it a some over paid MP or some dest ridding sea lord ..
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
I'm sure we both realise that of us will ever know for sure what motivated him, but I would still note that the Mail is an obvious paper of choice for someone looking to cash in on a sensational story for big bucks. The Mail is not an obvious choice for someone looking to put a serious story on the record for good reason.
However, let's assume that his motivation was genuinely whistle blowing a poor decision. His belief that the decision was poor was based on a total misunderstanding on his part - he was unware that the pirates did not have hostages when, in fact, they did.
One more issue. Let's assume that it was fairly clear that the incident could have been ended with force at limited risk to the hostages. What possible motive would whoever made the decision to turn down quick glory and the freeing of hostages? Why would anyone deliberately act against their own interests? They wouldn't.
I think there are four POVs here:
A rescue of the Chandlers was too risky to them and the rescuers and the RFA acted correctly.
Personally I see no problem with this. It fits the facts as we know them.
A rescue of the Chandlers not too risky and the RFA did not act correctly.
This is problematic because then you have to explain why the RFA didn't simply perform the rescue. It would have been in their own interests. Also, to many (me included) it's hard to see how you'd get two people off a skiff full of kidnappers. Yes there are ways it could have been attempted but is it really reasonable to think that the RFA would not have considered these before rejected them?
A rescue of the Chandlers was very risky but the deaths of the Chandlers would be an acceptable price to pay to discourage other piracy and the decision not to make an attempt was wrong.
Well, yes. Personally I strongly disagree with this for the obvious reasons, but it is a logical position to take. To anyone who subscribes to the view the RFA was, indeed wrong.
The Chandlers were not hostages/there were no hostages and therefore no problem.
The facts do not support this. There were hostages, and the Chandlers were already hostages when the RFA first saw them.
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
alant
Well-Known Member
Why??
Maybe because
1) They (RFA/RN) were there.
2) Time was of the essence, as always, particularly in this situation.
3) All operations become improvised once they have begun.
4) They were equiped for night operation, the pirates not.
5) They had been training for this type of operation for 2 weeks.
6) Why else were they there?
7) What were they training for, if not this?
8) Those 'in charge' onboard, seemed by their preparations, to believe it was achievable.
9) What makes you thing it would have been improvised anyway? Are our professionals not capable of putting a feasible plan together?
10) British Citizens, were in 'grave & imminent danger'.
Now tell me, why do YOU think that an RFA ship should NOT have launched an improvised operation, at night, against two vessels with an unknown number of hostile personnel holding two hostages with only a small number of trained men who are only trained in ship boarding tactics, and not hostage rescue?
More importantly, why, because no rescue attempt was made, the Chandlers are being held, awaiting summary execution in Somalia? How much anguished planning is needed to rescue them now (non improvised of course)?
Maybe because
1) They (RFA/RN) were there.
2) Time was of the essence, as always, particularly in this situation.
3) All operations become improvised once they have begun.
4) They were equiped for night operation, the pirates not.
5) They had been training for this type of operation for 2 weeks.
6) Why else were they there?
7) What were they training for, if not this?
8) Those 'in charge' onboard, seemed by their preparations, to believe it was achievable.
9) What makes you thing it would have been improvised anyway? Are our professionals not capable of putting a feasible plan together?
10) British Citizens, were in 'grave & imminent danger'.
Now tell me, why do YOU think that an RFA ship should NOT have launched an improvised operation, at night, against two vessels with an unknown number of hostile personnel holding two hostages with only a small number of trained men who are only trained in ship boarding tactics, and not hostage rescue?
More importantly, why, because no rescue attempt was made, the Chandlers are being held, awaiting summary execution in Somalia? How much anguished planning is needed to rescue them now (non improvised of course)?
Clarky
Well-Known Member
Dear Toad,
How many times do people have to point out to you that the obvious resolution was for the RFA to prevent the pirates and hostages going to the mothership.
Clearly there was dreadful decision making and then there was a cover up.
Where does the cover up and outright lies from the Navy fit in your nice little story.
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
Because there are too many variables, and too many unknowns to guarantee the safety of the hostages which was the primary concern. If it wasn't a concern then we'd all be congratulating the Wave Knight in the capture of a pirate mother ship.
The Chandlers are not awaiting summary execution. Killing hostages is not a habit the pirates are likely to start any time soon and they're well used to waiting a long time before receiving any ransom money.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
So in your view the RFA skipper was presented with situation with an 'obvious' course of action that would have won him personal acclaim, saved at least two people from a hellish ordeal & been a poke in the eye for at least one band of pirates.
He then did one of two things:
a) Decided not to take the obvious course of action.
b) Reported the incident up the chain of command in such a way that his boss concluded that it was too risky.
In either case. Why?
We don't know anything about the decision. We don't know who made it or what factors were considered! In what way is it clear?
The cover-up was inexcusable, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. I suspect they feared that Mail readers would not comprehend the complexities of hostage recovery and they were right! The RN don't know much about the media, but their budget has been cut year on year. PR staff are rightly or wrongly probably not a priority for them!
sailaboutvic
Well-Known Member
Toad mate you still making excuses for them . O M G .. please please please stop ..
Ok let just say the chandlers where take to the mother ship and let just say there where other hostages on three .Lets go all the way here guys let also say the RN seamen on board the wave knight wasn’t trained to attempted a rescue COME ON let say they all only had one bloody leg each , why couldn’t wave knight put a small hole in the side of the mother ship just below the water line . It would had stop the ship going any where , and lets face it very unlightly the pirates are going to kill the hostages as some keep pointing out on here ( they never kill any one) and with the mother ship taken in water I would think their be more concern with being rescue them self especially how it well know they RN would supply them with fuel and water and send them on they way ..
At the end of the day … ALL OF US WHERE GIVEN A LOAD OF LIES , so how can any one believe any thing the RN say’s now
Ok let just say the chandlers where take to the mother ship and let just say there where other hostages on three .Lets go all the way here guys let also say the RN seamen on board the wave knight wasn’t trained to attempted a rescue COME ON let say they all only had one bloody leg each , why couldn’t wave knight put a small hole in the side of the mother ship just below the water line . It would had stop the ship going any where , and lets face it very unlightly the pirates are going to kill the hostages as some keep pointing out on here ( they never kill any one) and with the mother ship taken in water I would think their be more concern with being rescue them self especially how it well know they RN would supply them with fuel and water and send them on they way ..
At the end of the day … ALL OF US WHERE GIVEN A LOAD OF LIES , so how can any one believe any thing the RN say’s now
sailaboutvic
Well-Known Member
ps
PS what is it with you and the mail???
PS what is it with you and the mail???
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
If you accept that they were trained, is it unreasonable to assume that part of their training is to understand which operations are likely to have positive outcomes and which aren't? Is it unreasonable to assume they decided that on this occasion that there was nothing they could do?
Is it not possible they all got kitted up hoping to take action, then they realized there were hostages involved and concluded it wasn’t feasible. At least one crew member was under the mistaken impression that there were no hostages even after the event - perhaps they all thought that beforehand?
Remind me. What proportion of hostages held in Somalia have been executed to date?
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Read "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies or just buy a copy of the paper to see for yourself what an abysmal insult to journalism it is. (Mind you they spend more than any other paper on news gathering - the problem is by the time they put their senastionalist spin on it they might as well not have bothered.)
I could be wrong but I think it was a past editor of the Mail who famously said ""My readers are never wrong. Dispicable, but never wrong.".
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Why would I make excuses for them? I've no connection with the Navy. I'm just looking at it logically and based on what little is in the public domain about the incident.
So why didn't they do it? Too lazy? Too stupid? If it had been a viable plan what reason would they have for not doing it? Do the Pirates typically hold hostages locked low down in the ship to prevent such action? We just don't know.
Agree. ...but I doubt they'd risk thier hide to unlock hostages as the ship floundered, either.
Samuel Johnson said "That which is strange is delightful, and a pleasing error is not willingly detected". "Evil navy condemn elderly couple to death shocker." is a novel story. It's interesting and sells papers. The boring truth - they're just a bunch of blokes doing their best who came accross a situation where they couldn't help - just doesn't have the same legs.
David_Jersey
Well-Known Member
Your analysis (as always
) is wrong.The Captain of the RFA did both of those things. Why? So he couldn't get blamed for making a decision that was later criticised as "wrong".
In some respects I do have sympathy with the Captain
Having a shipboard lawyer is a damned good indicator that the Navy command structure is seriously f#cked and designed around a culture of CYA. But I do know that anyone who manages to rise through the ranks of management within such a culture considers a CYA based approach reasonable. if not normal 
. I am sure the Navy thinks it is being clever with it's carefully chosen words and hints around matters secret - but (just like politicians) more illuminating to understand what they don't say. Still, I am sure the Somali Pirates are fooled
BTW was the RFA vessel called "Wave Knight" because giving only a "wave" is their primary ROE
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
So you think he took a decision he knew to be wrong, to avoid being later criticised as "wrong"???
How the hell does that work? Why would anyone say he was wrong to rescue hostages? He'd have been a hero!
Or are you accepting that there was a high chance that he'd have wasted the Chandlers by mistake and been blamed for the bungled rescue attempt?
If you think that then he was right not to risk a bungled rescue.