Somalia pirates face Russian justice

[Bugsy]

[quote user="Will"] - just that to say 'the Navy was 50 yards away and did nothing' is a misleading statement,

[/quote]

Hardly misleading Will,  what, exactly, did they do then ?

Apart from letting the pirates get on with the abduction without any hindrance which I suppose is slightly different than doing actually nothing.

".................was that not all the weapons were ready for use, and not all the naval personnel onboard were fully trained in using them in combat"

That is surely a punishable offence in the Royal Navy for a ship at sea.

.

[Richard51]

[quote user="Will"] For it to open fire when it was not itself being attacked itself would no doubt have caused some controversy, to say the least.

[/quote]

I guess it's a bit like the police not being able to help pensioners who are being attacked because they are outnumbered by the assailants.  Understandable really - one wouldn't want to expose oneself to potential risk unnecessarily.

[brianagain]

[quote user="Will"]Unless you or I were there it's impossible to say what happened.

... just that to say 'the Navy was 50 yards away and did nothing' is a misleading statement, and to say that the Navy is scared of the pirates is beneath contempt.

[/quote]

I'm in full agreement with Will (and as a RN pensioner can partly appreciate the difficult task faced by those actually there). And as already pointed out the Wave Knight is not "HMS" but an RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary) under the command of a (civlian) Master and crewed by the merchant navy. Think of it as a floating supermarket with essential supplies and fuel for the frontline RN vessels.

Brian (again)

[Quillan]

Brian you are quite right, its is RFA not HMS Wave Knight, sorry about that. However it does take part in 'action' and has done so more than once. You and Will may take time to remember 2003 during its 4 month tour in the Atlantic when it, in conjunction with HMS Cumberland, successfully confiscated a total of some 3.6 tons (HMS Cumberland got 2 tons of the Nicaraguan coast  and the RFA Wave Knight 1.6 in the Caribbean) of cocaine in several interceptions as well as capturing, after a gun fight, the crews of the boats used by the drug smugglers. Ironically the method used to stop the boats was to shoot the outboard engines thus destroying them to stop the smugglers from getting away. I remember it being broadcast on the BBC news and I am sure if you do a search on their website you will be able to find more details.

Seeing as they were able to do it then I wonder why they couldn't do it on this occasion (a yacht is a lot slower than a high speed speedboat which is a harder target) and as I said it can't be a matter of not having the RN personnel on board for reasons I previously mentioned. Unless that is that the RN is so stupid as to send a RFA ship in to potentially hostile waters without protection which I am sure they are not.

[nounours]

Perhaps the navy was mindful of the prior attempt by the French to rescue hostages from a yacht? Storming the boat mght be good idea for those who read the Wizard and Boys Own, perhaps not the best option in the real world for the hostages who are after all still alive.

[Bugsy]

[quote user="nounours"] Storming the boat mght be good idea for those who read the Wizard and Boys Own, perhaps not the best option in the real world for the hostages who are after all still alive.[/quote]

Well, I've never read either of those but maybe you're right, and who really knows, unless actually there.

What I do believe, however, that the current thinking, widespread in the UK's powers that be, that the 'we musn't hurt the little darlings, they probably come from a poor background syndrome' has turned our once-great nation into a bit of a laughing stock.

The pirates and terrorists that we have today laugh in their boots at our fumbling negotiations and committee-made decisions, seeing it only as weakness.

**Maybe the time has come for a touch of 'bottle' to be brought back.

** Pure Boys-Own stuff, of course [:P]

.

[Quillan]

[quote user="nounours"]Perhaps the navy was mindful of the prior attempt by the French to rescue hostages from a yacht? Storming the boat mght be good idea for those who read the Wizard and Boys Own, perhaps not the best option in the real world for the hostages who are after all still alive.[/quote]

Yes it was unfortunate that one of the hostages got killed, probably by a French bullet but then three others and a child were rescued and it was after negotiations broke down. Actually if you start looking around the net the French have been quite busy freeing hostages by force and this is the first time a hostage has been killed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7994201.stm

and

http://yachtpals.com/somalia-pirates-french-rescue-3059

Even the Dutch have had success.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-dutch-commandos-rescue-hostages-capture-pirates-somalia-gulf-aden

Other countries also have been rescuing hostages from the pirates except for the UK that is (as far as I can see).

If you pay the ransom (apparently now the pirates realize they won't get any for this English couple but want the hostages food and lodging paid for!) and/or don't take action then you are easy pickings. Only two things these pirates understand, money or death (their death).

 

[Weedon]

Once upon a time the SAS set the standard in taking prompt and decisive action against terrorists who attacked British citizens and/or property.  I remember watching the SAS freeing the hostages from the Iranian Embassy at Princes Gate when it was shown, as it was happening, on television, then later on at the Spaghetti House siege (I think it was called).

What I don't now understand is why the UK appears to have become soft and indecisive in dealing with these people.

[Chancer]

Dare I say because this couple are not seen as their responsibility any more? And should they be any more than the rest of us that have left the country of our birth?

Also a rescue (now) would involve an invasion of a foreign state and we would never do that would we, [:P] 

I suppose technically a raid on a foreign embassy is an invasion of their soil whereas liberating hostages from a British embassy overseas takes place on our own soil.

I guess that the government was right to not give in to demands for ransom, the pirates have dropped from one or was it several million pounds to £100000 and now to the cost of board and lodging, I am sure that the relatives or the media can easily stretch to that sum and I cannot see how the government could stop this from happening.

I did find the other report must have been hiding something,  the organisation said that the negotiations were concluded and they were ready to pay the ransom of £100000 but the government stopped them, I wonder if it really meant ready to organise the transfer of the governments money?

[Weedon]

I really cannot understand your attitude to this couple Chancer, you appear to be saying that once British born people leave the British Isles they lose all protection.  Using the same formula a Somali terrorist could expect more protection if he left Somalia to live in the uk.

Your patriotic values are not the ones I was brought up with.

[nounours]

Is it just the British?  Many boats have been held off this coast, from Singapore, Bahamas, China, France and Germany.  Apat from the yacht couple there is apparently a British boat with a crew of over 20 and a German one currently being held.  Maybe that is why navies and special forces of  these nations are not lying off the coast waiting to go in.  Also, the only casualties so far have been during rescue attempts.

As for using the SAS,  a big difference is that London is in the UK and Somalia isn't, so no unfriendly natives to worry about in Knightsbridge. REmember, the US went in on land once and lost a number of men, so sense says keep out and negotiate.

[nounours]

Quillan wrote Even the Dutch have had success.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-dutch-commandos-rescue-hostages-capture-pirates-somalia-gulf-aden

Did you actually read this report before posting it?  It was about the prevention of an attack and was by a number of forces including the Royal Navy sent ouy there to do exactly that job,  This was not a hostage rescue in any shape or form.

[Weedon]

[quote user="nounours"]

As for using the SAS,  a big difference is that London is in the UK and Somalia isn't, so no unfriendly natives to worry about in Knightsbridge. REmember, the US went in on land once and lost a number of men, so sense says keep out and negotiate.

[/quote]

I didn't actually say send in the SAS, you assumed that is what I meant.  I merely used the examples to demonstrate how once upon a time the UK was renowned for taking decisive action but now appears to be hesitant and a little toothless. A good example of that was at the time the yacht couple were first abducted by Somali's. I accept that I wasn't there so therefore have to rely on what is reported, but I imagine the majority of people take the same view as me, and some others on this forum. I can only think the Somali's took the same view when they were allowed to sail away with their hostages.

But now you mention about taking action on British soil and Knightsbridge etc. If you care to do any research there are plenty of examples where UK special forces have been in action all over the world during a time when the rest of the world looked to Britain as a country who looked after and cared about their citizens, wherever they were.

[PaulT]

It is with regret that I have to agree with the UK Government - paying a ransom will merely provoke them to taking more British hostages. Not paying a ransom should mean that they will avoid the British.

Mounting a recue could be difficult. They have split the couple and move them frequently which, from the kidnappers point of view is extremely sensible. It means that forces would have to locate and closely monitor where each one of the couple were and mount the rescue at exactly the same time. Concealment could be a problem.

My understanding was that piracy on the high seas was an international offence, yet when these pirates are caught they have their arms confiscated, are given food and fuel and sent on their way. A bit like a shop lifter being caught, having items taken from him and leaving him to do the same thing again.

It is a dreadful situation for the couple but they should have been aware as to how far the pirates were travelling to take hostages.

Killing the couple could be a very bad move for the pirates as it could make the various agencies patrolling the waters a little harsher.

I have often wondered why there is not a convoy system so that a number of merchant ships travel together guarded by various navy ships - if the authorities want any more info on how this can be done they only need to look back to the 2nd World War and, as of yet, the pirates do not have submarines.

Paul

 

 

[Chancer]

[quote user="Weedon"]

I really cannot understand your attitude to this couple Chancer, you appear to be saying that once British born people leave the British Isles they lose all protection.  Using the same formula a Somali terrorist could expect more protection if he left Somalia to live in the uk.

Your patriotic values are not the ones I was brought up with.

[/quote]

Not really about patriotism from my point of view, realism perhaps, taking responsibility for and accepting the consequences of ones own actions.

When I leave British soil even for France as far as I am concerned yes I lose all protection, I may perhaps in an emergency be able to call on the British Embassy of the country that I am in for assistance, the one time I have needed to do this I found that there was no longer one!

Its a sad fact that terrorists, criminals, people smugglers, drug smugglers n'importe qui gets more protection in the UK than their own country, more protection than British subjects in most cases. Could a Somali terrorist expect housing and benefits in Somalia?

[Quillan]

[quote user="Chancer"][quote user="Weedon"]

I really cannot understand your attitude to this couple Chancer, you appear to be saying that once British born people leave the British Isles they lose all protection.  Using the same formula a Somali terrorist could expect more protection if he left Somalia to live in the uk.

Your patriotic values are not the ones I was brought up with.

[/quote]

Not really about patriotism from my point of view, realism perhaps, taking responsibility for and accepting the consequences of ones own actions.

When I leave British soil even for France as far as I am concerned yes I lose all protection, I may perhaps in an emergency be able to call on the British Embassy of the country that I am in for assistance, the one time I have needed to do this I found that there was no longer one!

Its a sad fact that terrorists, criminals, people smugglers, drug smugglers n'importe qui gets more protection in the UK than their own country, more protection than British subjects in most cases. Could a Somali terrorist expect housing and benefits in Somalia?

[/quote]

Interesting point that. I just had a look at my passport and it reads as follows.:

Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.

It would seem the UK pass's the buck when you leave to the country you go to so yes you do loose UK protection. I'm not going to copy it out but when you next open your passport you might read Note 4 as well. I hope you have told the British Consulate here in France that you are indeed here but like just about everyone else, including myself, I doubt it.

[Weedon]

[quote user="Chancer"][quote user="Weedon"]

I really cannot understand your attitude to this couple Chancer, you appear to be saying that once British born people leave the British Isles they lose all protection.  Using the same formula a Somali terrorist could expect more protection if he left Somalia to live in the uk.

Your patriotic values are not the ones I was brought up with.

[/quote]

When I leave British soil even for France as far as I am concerned yes I lose all protection, I may perhaps in an emergency be able to call on the British Embassy of the country that I am in for assistance, the one time I have needed to do this I found that there was no longer one!

[/quote]

Chancer, there is not much point in knocking the ball backwards and forwards is there?

I can see that, apart from having a small amount of sympathy for the couple, you have little regard for the position they find themselves in. Perhaps they were a little lacking in foresight but GB as a nation grew in no small part to people who, although lacking in a little forward planning, simply made up for it with spirit and just going for it.

I don't wish to go back specifically to earlier postings of yours but you did say something like "If I found myself in a similar position I wouldn't expect any help from my government"

I imagine therefore that the one time you sought help from the Embassy was simply as you say because it was a real emergency. From what has been written and from newsreels I reckon the yacht couple can consider themselves to be in an emergency situation, or have I read more into it than is really there?

I can remember a time when once we had real regard for our fellowman, this has declined in recent years almost to the point when we couldn't give much of a toss to what happens even to next door neighbours.

[Chancer]

[quote user="Weedon"][quote user="Chancer"][quote user="Weedon"]

I[/quote]

[/quote]

Chancer, there is not much point in knocking the ball backwards and forwards is there?

I can see that, apart from having a small amount of sympathy for the couple, you have little regard for the position they find themselves in. Perhaps they were a little lacking in foresight but GB as a nation grew in no small part to people who, although lacking in a little forward planning, simply made up for it with spirit and just going for it.

[/quote]

I agree that its not worth going back and forth but I do want to say that I do actually have every sympathy for the couple (even if you cant see it from my posts) and can identify better than most with  their situation as I one day will be doing the same thing

Regarding spirit and just going for it well that is the story of my life and why I am here in France having done nil research, it is also sadly the reason that I lost my uncle whose yacht dissapeared without trace on his maiden voyage.

[just john]

[quote user="Weedon"] I can remember a time when once we had real regard for our fellowman, this has declined in recent years almost to the point when we couldn't give much of a toss to what happens even to next door neighbours. [/quote]

I have to say that I'm completely with Weedon on this, the whole reason for starting this thread was the fall in UK international standards, the impotence of what is supposed to be protection by the RN from pirates and the lack of ANY real policeing of the area.

Burning the fisherman out may not solve the pirate problem, but, is that all it takes to hold to hostage, merchant shipping and citizens of the realm?, a few poxy disgruntled fishermen with hand held arms and some souped up dinghys operating from some old tub of a fishing smack, against the might of a sea power! Tossers indeed. I really don't think this spineless performance would have sufficed 20/30 years ago.

Anyone can make a cock-up, but recovery can redeem the situation, and there seems to be little sign of this on the Horizon, less of England Expects and more of I see no pirates

[Thibault]

I understand, from something I heard on the radio yesterday, that this couple were specifically warned not to go into the area where they were captured by the pirates.  Their answer, allegedly, was that they had been there before and intended to go there again.

What we seem to have lost over the last 30 years or so is the notion of personal responsibility.  Today, it is common practice to blame everyone else for whatever happens to us.  If we are fat, it is because the food manufacturers produce food which is too full of fat and sugar.  If we drink a lot, it is the fault of the supermarkets because they sell alcohol too cheaply.  If we fall over on ice and break a wrist on the way to school, it is the fault of the schools remaining open.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Thibault"]

I understand, from something I heard on the radio yesterday, that this couple were specifically warned not to go into the area where they were captured by the pirates.  Their answer, allegedly, was that they had been there before and intended to go there again.

What we seem to have lost over the last 30 years or so is the notion of personal responsibility.  Today, it is common practice to blame everyone else for whatever happens to us.  If we are fat, it is because the food manufacturers produce food which is too full of fat and sugar.  If we drink a lot, it is the fault of the supermarkets because they sell alcohol too cheaply.  If we fall over on ice and break a wrist on the way to school, it is the fault of the schools remaining open.

[/quote]

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there you buy a yacht or a cruiser who have little or no experience and hold no qualifications at all. I have seen people navigate the tidal part of the Thames with things like an A to Z of London or a visitors map showing the attractions along the Thames. I have even seen people sailing along the UK coast on holiday (with the wife and kids) with a AA road atlas. They don't have a clue, some don't even have a radio (they seem to think a normal mobile phone will work out of sight of land) yet when things go even slightly wrong they call out the RNLI. Boy have I seen some stupid things in all my days of sailing, I could probably fill a book with them.

As I said earlier there are weekly Notices to Mariners, they also have a website and anyone who sails will tell you it needs planing and a lot of thought (unless you know a particular piece of domestic water by hand). Even having a chart, unless you keep it up to date, does not mean you are safe. So if what you say is true then really its their problem and as you say people just don't take the responsibility their own actions they once did expecting others to get them out the muck when things go wrong. Their attitude as you describe it is only too common I am afraid. Whilst I have some sympathy for what has happened to them since I don't have much sympathy regarding how they ended up in this situation. I mean even Joe public knows the area is not safe so you would like to think anyone wanting to sail in that area would get as much advice as possible or better still just don't go.

[Will]

For once I find myself in total agreement with you Quillan. With people agreeing with NormanH as well about the Pope, it looks like today is a pink fluffy bunny day... [:D]

Although nobody would seriously expect pleasure boaters to have to comply with the SOLAS (safety of life at sea convention) carriage requirements that govern merchant ships, it is daft that they are not compelled to carry at least proper charts and suitable communications equipment. Fortunately most yachtsmen are responsible people, but there is always a stupid minority. I'm not saying that the people in question came into this category, but it does beg many questions about why they were sailing in an admittedly large area that is known to be highly dangerous.

[just john]

Instead of saying that victims are culpable, Russia looked at the rules of engagement when dealing with the Somali pirates and decided to try a different, more traditional approach. That is, they used the anti-piracy laws of the 18th and 19th centuries where the captain of the rescuing ship has the right to decide what to do with the pirates. Usually, they were hung. 
This videotape (available on You-tube) shows Russian Navy commandos on a Somalian pirate ship shortly after the pirates had captured a Russian oil tanker. The Euro-Union navy that patrols these waters would not interfere because they feared there could be casualties.
All explanations are in Russian with a single exception of when a wounded pirate says something in English. All conversations between the commandos are in Russian. If you don't understand Russian, the pictures speak for themselves.
The soldiers freed their compatriots, moved all the pirates to their own (pirate) ship, searched the pirate ship for weapons and explosives, and then they left the ship and exploded it with all remaining pirates on it.
The commandos sunk the pirate ship along with the pirates and without any court proceedings, lawyers etc. Russian ships will not now be targets for Somalian pirates.

 

I think it works in this instance; of course the British Navy would need to employ commandos for the job and conduct it's own operating tactics evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 YouTube - Russian Navy dealing with Somali pirates

Result .

Don't mess with the USS; 

UK ok, we'll let you.

EDIT: My interest in this case is neither the couple nor the pirates, but the freedom (allowed or curtailed) to travel wherever on a British Passport and whether or not that right is defended by UK Government.

 

 

 

 

[Quillan]

I loved the comment about the pirates 'human rights', my *rse. If you go out and intend to commit a crime against another person or group of persons then you loose all human rights the moment you start off, well thats my attitude anyway. It's just a shame other countries don't do the same thing. Interesting way of fishing I thought looking at all the guns and explosives, I use bleach myself, old poachers trick. [;-)]

[Bugsy]

Or join this cruise

[:D][:P]

.