Yacht Skipper accused obstructing warship

[s/v moondancer]

I used to sail out of Rhu on the Clyde and they bring nuclear subs through the narow area opposite the marine and then make the turn into the Clyde. The guys with machine guns were always polite and seemed to appreciate the need for seamanship and I sure as hell had no intention of arguing.

 

[Boreades]

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?

Was it Sir Peter Blake?

 

[robertj]

report

If you feel that you are acting responsibly and that the Naval Ship indeed did unduly operate in a manner to upset you, write to the commanding officer of the base.
You will get no redress but behind the scenes the officer involved will have to explain his actions and with a cursory warning no doubt to indeed not upset the civies.

 

[maxi77]

If you feel that you are acting responsibly and that the Naval Ship indeed did unduly operate in a manner to upset you, write to the commanding officer of the base.
You will get no redress but behind the scenes the officer involved will have to explain his actions and with a cursory warning no doubt to indeed not upset the civies.

Indeed, though in this case it seems to be more a Modplod boat acting under the QHM's instructions and clearly the QHM has reviewed the situation and opted to prosecute.

 

[puddock]

The authorities have not decided to presecute for fun. If this goes to trial, that is a lot of inconvenience, costs etc that they would have been happy to avoid unless sufficiently provoked.
Nothing is more likely to provoke prosecution than being a smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*r who thinks he is above being asked to comply with requests from authority.

 

[srm]

Don't really see what all the fuss is about - have only been in Plymouth Harbour area twice, 2003 and this year. On both times was well aware that warships have priority, QHM rules the roost, etc. etc. It is clearly summarised in Reeds and whatever other pilotage information I referred to.

 

[timbartlett]

The authorities have not decided to presecute for fun.

There are all sorts of reasons why "the authorities" might have decided to prosecute.
Complete and utter ignorance of what the law actuallly says (as opposed to what they would like it to say) is only one possibility
Earlier this year, I was taken to court by the DVLA. Right from the start, it had been blindingly obvious that they could not win. I thought, at first, that the summons was just intended to frighten me into rolling over.
It was only later that I found out that once a matter has gone to court, the ombudsman will refuse to investigate it.
In other words, a few quid of taxpayers' money wasted on a frivolous court case is a good way of covering up a civil servant's incompetence or dishonesty.

PS The colregs are part of an international treaty. As part of their obligations under the treaty, all the siognatory states (including the UK) are required to incorporate the colregs into their own national legislation. In our case, that is the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996. And yes, you can be fined for breaking them. In fact, yotties are usually fined considerably more heavily than fishermen or ships' masters.

 

[Ubergeekian]

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.

I once got to within about 30' of the jetty at Coulport in similar circumstances. I think the plod was more worried that his fly cuppa habit had been exposed than he was about the chance that I was about to tie up, storm ashore and steal a Big Nuclear Bangy Thing.

 

[Ubergeekian]

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!

We should never get into the habit of thinking that police requests are automatically the law. Seriously.

 

[Ubergeekian]

The authorities have not decided to presecute for fun. If this goes to trial, that is a lot of inconvenience, costs etc that they would have been happy to avoid unless sufficiently provoked.

They wouldn't prosecute him if he wasn't guilty, eh? Are you a magistrate, by any chance?

Nothing is more likely to provoke prosecution than being a smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*r who thinks he is above being asked to comply with requests from authority.

Perhaps, but "being a smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*r" is not and should not be a criminal offence.

 

[RIB_imposter]

And yes, you can be fined for breaking them. In fact, yotties are usually fined considerably more heavily than fishermen or ships' masters.

Can you back that up with meaningful examples?

 

[timbartlett]

Can you back that up with meaningful examples?

Yes, thank you.
For instance, here is a piece I wrote for Motor Boat and Yachting last year.

Folkestone Magistrates imposed a fine of £6,000 plus costs of £2,084.45 on delivery skipper Lee Choat , for what was described as “a significant error in navigation” that led to him driving a 36-foot motor cruiser fifteen miles north-eastward in the southwest-bound lane of the Dover separation scheme.

The magistrates said that they took Mr Choat’s early plea of guilty into account and that the fine would have been significantly higher if he had not pleaded not guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

Clearly, they also took into account the fact that Mr Choat was the professional skipper of a pleasure vessel. Looking back over MCA records of similar recent cases shows that fines and costs against delivery skippers have averaged £12000, while those against the skippers of commercial vessels have averaged £2,500.

I can't spare the time, right now, to back-track through those figures, but I can assure you that they came direct from MCA press releases, most of which are available on the MCA website.

 

[timbartlett]

We should never get into the habit of thinking that police requests are automatically the law. Seriously.

Hear! Hear!

And to those that suggest I should have more respect for the law.... I do respect the law. That is why I feel such utter contempt for civil servants and police officers who allow themselves to be swept along by the wave of institutional dishonesty that is sweeping through the whole of the civil service.

I'm not saying that honest, well-informed civil servants don't exist. Just that they seem to be in a declining minority amongst a nest of parasites.

 

[Observer]

We should never get into the habit of thinking that police requests are automatically the law. Seriously.

Hear! Hear!

Hear! Hear! here too.

I suggest that right-thinking citizens have the responsibility to question all "requests from authority" to act in a particular way that appears to be solely or mainly for official convenience. If the request appears arbitrary and/or is not founded on expressly delegated powers, it is both right and necessary, for the continuance of individual liberty, that the person issuing the request should be challenged to demonstrate the authority by which it is made.

 

[bedouin]

Hear! Hear! here too.

I suggest that right-thinking citizens have the responsibility to question all "requests from authority" to act in a particular way that appears to be solely or mainly for official convenience. If the request appears arbitrary and/or is not founded on expressly delegated powers, it is both right and necessary, for the continuance of individual liberty, that the person issuing the request should be challenged to demonstrate the authority by which it is made.

The problem is that the balance of power has shifted signficantly over the last ten years. Now it is getting to the case where the police can do you for almost anything.

Under the guise of "anti-terror" legislation there has been a huge erosion of our human rights and civil liberties.

Ten years ago it would have been unthinkable for it to be an offence to take a picture of someone in the street - or for anyone to be held indefinitely without charge and without even knowing the evidence against them.

The real failing of the anti-terror laws is not that they have been passed at all, but that they are applied too widely and are being used in circumstances never envisaged when they were passed

 

[maxi77]

Hear! Hear! here too.

I suggest that right-thinking citizens have the responsibility to question all "requests from authority" to act in a particular way that appears to be solely or mainly for official convenience. If the request appears arbitrary and/or is not founded on expressly delegated powers, it is both right and necessary, for the continuance of individual liberty, that the person issuing the request should be challenged to demonstrate the authority by which it is made.

Indeed but there are more than one way of achieving this and sometimes it can be done more effectively and with less pain and cost.

 

[uxb]

I am typing this from my cabin in a pussers grey and we don't have papers out here either. The internet connection is VERY slow and the TV is via a very dodgy satellite link.

Well!

Things have changed since I was showing three reelers in the mess...

Youth of today...blah blah blah...

 

[RIB_imposter]

Yes, thank you.
For instance, here is a piece I wrote for Motor Boat and Yachting last year.


I can't spare the time, right now, to back-track through those figures, but I can assure you that they came direct from MCA press releases, most of which are available on the MCA website.

Thanks Tim. Possibly not the best example to backup your claim... ...perhaps it is my error for assuming that the term "yachtie" was supposed to refer to an "amatuer" sailor opperating a sail driven craft; as would appear to be the case in the OP of this thread.

The MCA website where you referred me to, provides the following more detailed information:

"Mr Choat then took the vessel in a north easterly direction against the general flow of traffic. The vessel continued in this lane for approximately 50minutes travelling about 15 miles before exiting the South West lane and re-entering the Inshore Traffic Zone. During this period the vessel passed relatively close to three large merchant ships that were travelling in a south westerly direction.
Coastguard Officers at Dover Channel Navigation Information Service (CNIS) based at Langdon Battery made a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact the vessel by VHF radio. A passing ship was able to describe to Dover CNIS the colour and type of craft. The Coastguard aircraft was launched to identify the radar target. Having left the lane Mr Choat became aware of the aircraft activity and answered a radio call from Dover CNIS.
The Chairman of the Bench said that there were four aggravating factors in this case
1. The speed and distance of transgression
2. The experience of Mr Choat
3. It was a commercial voyage
4. A significant error in navigation"

It would be innapropriate to compare the fine to an average of all other fines levied against Merchant Vessels - since the seriousness of their transgressions may not have been equivalent.

The fines for merchant vessels seem to vary from £500 to £14000 so I think it is too simple to look at an "average" fine and compare it. From a cursory glance it would appear the largest of those fines was similar in "seriousness" to the actions of Mr Choat. The smallest fine was for crossing a TSS not at right angles, but did not encounter any other vessels.

I could find two yachts which both got big fines also - but they also seem to have been heading the wrong way for long distances and in the biggest fine required other vessels to take avoiding action. Might I suggest that the fines are proportionate to the danger/risk involved rather than the type of vessel/status of owner. Interestingly I couldn't find any prosecutions of genuine leisure sailors ("yachties").

 

[jamesjermain]

I'd love to know where this was - exactly. 700 yards is a long way and inside the breakwater there are few stretches that long without big bends to complicate matters. Like others, I have tried to get out of the way of ships north of Drake Island and on occasions have found my prefered course of action at odds with instructions from the MOD launch. They don't seem to fully understand tacking and I have insisted in holding my course to clear the channel on an existing tack rather than turning 90 degrees directly back into the path of a ship.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Well!

Things have changed since I was showing three reelers in the mess...

Youth of today...blah blah blah...

If you want to swing the lamp, I go back well into the days of three reelers and icecream after the second reel!

Never had internet or phones or e-mail or anything once upon a time.

Three months without mail or news was the longest I've done. (Standfast the football results that came in a signal from Fleet...)