puddock
Well-Known Member
Oh b**ger, you did it too! Should have read ALL the posts first.......sorry
Yacht Skipper accused obstructing warship
- Thread starter lyc
- Start date
Oh b**ger, you did it too! Should have read ALL the posts first.......sorry
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
The statutory regulations were the website I linked to above, sorry I should have said what it was but was (suppposed to be) working at the time
The QHM's website is http://www.qhmplymouth.org.uk/
I can't see anything in there about getting in the way of ships or having to obey MOD launch instructions. You cannot be charged with a non-offence. As I understand it the colregs are only concerned with liability and are not a rule of law. 700 meters is a huge distance within a harbour so I don't understand what law he is supposed to have broken.
rhumlady
Well-Known Member
A good few years ago I got too close into Faslane. There was a mobo with a rib tied aft while they were having coffee probably. It was only when I went about and headed out that the rib driver came screeming out of the cabin and teararsed over to me. He started giving me a rollocking and was obviously pee'd off getting caught out. They had thought I was one of there boats returning from an evening sail. I reckon I could have sailed right into the sailing club without being stopped.
TamarMike
Well-Known Member
The first paragraph:
"General
1. - (1) The master of every merchant or private vessel or any other person within the
limits of the Dockyard Port shall comply with any directions given by the Queen's
Harbour Master for the purposes of the proper protection of the Port, Her Majesty's
vessels, dockyards, or property, or for the requirements of Her Majesty's Naval Service."
also
"SCHEDULE 2
Article 5
RULES
Vessels entering or leaving Her Majesty's Naval Base
7. When any of Her Majesty's vessels in the charge of Her Majesty's Officers is
turning in, entering or leaving Her Majesty's Naval Base at Devonport, every other vessel
of whatever size underway in the vicinity of the said Naval Base shall then keep clear of
that vessel and of tugs which may be in attendance upon her."
admittedly 700m does seem to be sufficient distance to keep clear but perhaps he shouldn't have been seen so obviously giggling when he made the crew run aft when he dipped his ensign? ..........If "Zest" is part one registered I suppose it would be some sort of blue one....................
HELP HELP HELP
I'm turning into a troll
Last edited:
RIB_imposter
Well-Known Member
The fact it has made it to court clearly means that there is a specific offence involved rather than a vague notion of "wrongness". Perhaps the skipper is, like you, mistaken in believing that the colregs are not law...
...either he is a very smart guy or he is a very dumb guy...
You are as likely to see me defending myself in court against the QHM/Navy/MoD as you are to seeing me arguing with a bloody big grey ship or its escorts armed with machine guns.
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Well I have to say that my understanding of the colregs was that they are an internationally agreed set of regulations. As such if you breach them and cause an accident you are likely to be held liable for the incident. I did not consider them to be laws because if I a boat fails to give way to another boat on a starboard tack they will not face a fine. Can you be fined for not obeying the colregs?
RIB_imposter
Well-Known Member
The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 said:
Code:
EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations give effect to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended.
These Regulations replace the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1989, as amended, and related instruments.
United Kingdom vessels (including hovercraft) wherever they may be, and other vessels in United Kingdom waters are required to comply with the International Regulations as so amended; and the signals of distress set out in Annex IV to the International Regulations are prescribed for use by vessels as such signals. The Regulations apply to seaplanes on the surface of the water, except with regard to signals of distress.
The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea are now set out in a Merchant Shipping Notice (Merchant Shipping Notice No. M.1642/COLREG 1). This incorporates changes to Rule 26, and Annexes I, II and IV adopted in November 1993 by the International Maritime Organisation (Resolution A736(18)).
lenseman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2006
- Messages
- 7,077
- Location
- South East Coast - United Kingdom
Throw the book at him. No excuses, he did not comply with a request from the police and they probably attended as he was pratting about in front of the Frigate and they requested the police attendance.
They should confiscate his yacht and he should pay a hefty fine!
Giblets
Well-Known Member
Might be worth reading Item 6. -(1), para (c) on page 5 of The Dockyard Port of Plymouth Order 1999 then. http://www.rncom.mod.uk/uploadedFil...y_Instrument_1999_No_2029a_with_copyright.pdf
And also Schedule 1, Part 1, Item 1 viz: The master of every merchant or private vessel or any other person within the limits of the Dockyard Port shall comply with any directions given by the Queen's Harbour Master for the purposes of the proper protection of the Port, Her Majesty's vessels, dockyards, or property, or for the requirements of Her Majesty's Naval Service.
QHM's and MODPol have powers far exceeding those of civilian law and police.
planteater
Well-Known Member
Looking at Google Earth I'm struggling to see any area of Plymouth docks that has 700m of space to play around in.
You can't maintain a 1/2 km exclusion zone around a warship when it's driving up into the town centre.
You can't maintain a 1/2 km exclusion zone around a warship when it's driving up into the town centre.
David_Jersey
Well-Known Member
My guess is that the skipper was instructed to do something that he considered was unwise / unsafe for his own vessel and may well have been "robust" in putting his position accross - hence the prosecution.
Although legally allowed to instruct a skipper to head up the M1
IMO only an idiot would follow an instruction that was unsafe - even if backed by the law.
Of course the Frigate (and other large vessels) need to be allowed to progress without being wilfully impeded, but their is a diference between safety and simply conveniance.
Although legally allowed to instruct a skipper to head up the M1
IMO only an idiot would follow an instruction that was unsafe - even if backed by the law.Of course the Frigate (and other large vessels) need to be allowed to progress without being wilfully impeded, but their is a diference between safety and simply conveniance.
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Well it doesn't sound as if this applies. MOD Pol are not QHM.
I am not defending him, I just would like to know what law he is supposed to have broken.
Last edited:
Giblets
Well-Known Member
In these circumstances MODPol are under the control of QHM and operate in accordance with his instructions and requests in order to police the Regulations as laid down in the Dockyard Port of Plymouth Order. Same applies to Clyde, Faslane & Portsmouth.
We could speculate 'till the bovines roost as to what actually happened but I fancy we will have to wait until December to find out the exact circumstances.
Alfie168
Well-Known Member
If the request to move was clear and the direction was safe, then you acknowledge and act pronto. One can only suppose that his pratting about upset them mightily and they are making an example of him. Its unwise to assume the authorities will go along with the 'fun'.
This time last year I posted a photo of a yacht with a chunk out of it. This was caused by pratting about in close quarters racing by a bunch of drongos, and it broke a boat that wasn't theirs, so I'm not filled with sympathy for his predicament. You have to piss the MOD off pretty badly for them to take action as they will usually make allowances for the variability of skills at sea, just as long as you are trying, or being seen to try and cooperate.
The decision to prosecute will not have been a one man decision.
Tim
This time last year I posted a photo of a yacht with a chunk out of it. This was caused by pratting about in close quarters racing by a bunch of drongos, and it broke a boat that wasn't theirs, so I'm not filled with sympathy for his predicament. You have to piss the MOD off pretty badly for them to take action as they will usually make allowances for the variability of skills at sea, just as long as you are trying, or being seen to try and cooperate.
The decision to prosecute will not have been a one man decision.
Tim
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
This is complete supposition. There is nothing to suggest anywhere that your guess is anything but a complete ... uh the hint is in the words you use 'guess'. My experience of the MOD plod is that they are polite, but firm. Furthermore their seamanship is sound, and I cannot imagine a scenario in which they would request that you place your vessel in danger. When they come and remind boats in the main channel that a warship or submarine is coming, they always advise where safe water is, and they know the harbour very well!My guess is that the skipper was instructed to do something that he considered was unwise / unsafe for his own vessel and may well have been "robust" in putting his position accross - hence the prosecution.
Although legally allowed to instruct a skipper to head up the M1
Of course the Frigate (and other large vessels) need to be allowed to progress without being wilfully impeded, but their is a diference between safety and simply conveniance.
Furthermore, its not a question of not allowing the Frigate to being wilfully impeded. If the MOD-plod say move - you have to move. The by-laws give huge power to the QHM "...and his representitives...".
I am confident that whatever the yachtsman did, he really annoyed the police and the QHM for them to take him to court over it. The police launches generally spend more time driving round in circles and rescuing peoples boats that have broken clear of their moorings than proscecuting people. They also seem to spend more time that they would like searching for bodies of people who have jumped in or fallen in.
David_Jersey
Well-Known Member
srm
Well-Known Member
Yes you can if found guilty - and the MCA have taken ship masters and owners to court for infringing rule 10, this came up in conversation with a MCA examiner. There is a scale of fines in the MGN - Sorry can not give a link.
Just had a look on the MCA web site, www.mcga.gov.uk
One guy was fined £14000 and ordered to pay £6042 costs to the MCA for rule 10 violations. There are more.
So yes, for those who believe otherwise the col regs can be and are enforced in British courts.
peter radclyffe
N/A
yes , ive met some very pleasant policemen in norfolk, kerry, & the upper thames river police, the river makes them enjoy life
Malish
Well-Known Member
Well, the Observer reporter almost got the story right - they reported that the yachtsman is being prosecuted for sailing his £10m vessel in fron of Monmouth - a career with Yachting Monthly beckons ;-)
bedouin
Well-Known Member
Didn't one well known skipper get a hefty fine (>£20,000) a few years ago for sailing his maxi cat the wrong way down the Dover TSS?