Isle of Wight Tanker "Hijacked" 25/10/20

My contemporary posts, included at the bottom of the post, make it clear that I was sceptical of the government line and raised the points that have subsequently emerged.

I would not have made a song and dance about saving the nation from evil immigrant pirates. But then I am not a dodgy political party playing to a xenophobic base. My guess is those who want to believe the crap about sending strong messages to would be hijackers will continue to believe this guff.

However, this was an expensive PR stunt that did the opposite for certain key target audiences. The charges against the hijackers were dropped because there was no evidence of any threat to the ship which supports my theory that this was a migrant smuggling attempt/ potential con on the migrants that went wrong. This was always a possibility, but the captain and crew were allowed to continue on their journey.

According to the Times Priti Patel wants to increase the maximum sentence for the crime of assisting unlawful immigration because she believes the current limit of 14 years’ imprisonment is “not long enough”. But last October the SBS board a ship crewed by potential people smugglers who were escorted on their way.


26 Oct 2020 Pteranadon said:
I have not had time to read the whole thread,. but am I the only one to think that this was a rather expensive, if high profile, welcome to the UK party for a small group of would be immigrants? Deploying the SBS probably cost as much as the amount of money an immigrant needs to get the full VIP treatment afforded to the dodgy rich.

26 Oct 2020

Up to the point where they shoot you in the head and ease you over the rail for the hammerheads,makoes and whitetips who have followed you patiently from Lagos, quietly salivating.....
27 Oct 2020 Pteranadon said:

A very plausible fear. I guess the advantage for would be immigrants of using professional people smugglers is that they have a business reputation to protect, whereas sailors might see this as a one off lottery win.

We may not be looking at a ship being hijacked, but the result of the migrants fighting back when their supposed protectors tuned nasty. Perhaps having reached sight of the UK the penny dropped that there was no actual plan to get them ashore. That is until the HM Government laid on an armed escort and VIP travel.

I fond it hard to believe that half a dozen migrants could hide on a ship for weeks without some help. Is there any evidence that they were armed?

I wonder what actually happened. We may find out when and if there is a trial.


The date of the incident was Oct 25. I accept that you queried the way in which HMG reacted to the incident - but that was on Oct 26.

You have not answered my question as to how you would have reacted to the original threat; this may have been an oversight, but it does tend to support my comment about 20/20 hindsight.

You may well have been one of those in possession of all available information at the time, and if you were, I apologise. If you had that information, you may have a valid point about whether the action taken was an over-reaction.

But if not, with the greatest respect, your comments have the heady aroma of the the armchair general.
 

Pteranadon

LE
Book Reviewer
The date of the incident was Oct 25. I accept that you queried the way in which HMG reacted to the incident - but that was on Oct 26.

You have not answered my question as to how you would have reacted to the original threat; this may have been an oversight, but it does tend to support my comment about 20/20 hindsight.

You may well have been one of those in possession of all available information at the time, and if you were, I apologise. If you had that information, you may have a valid point about whether the action taken was an over-reaction.

But if not, with the greatest respect, your comments have the heady aroma of the the armchair general.
Au contraire.

On 26th October, when I posted my comments the oil tanker was tied up in Southampton. By this time those in authority ought to have been able to work out that there were a series of interpretations of events. If the government was at all serious about deterring people traffickers the ship's captain and crew should have been banged up as suspected people smugglers.

But instead I conclude the government is more interested in triumphalism and playing to its base.
 
Au contraire.

On 26th October, when I posted my comments the oil tanker was tied up in Southampton. By this time those in authority ought to have been able to work out that there were a series of interpretations of events. If the government was at all serious about deterring people traffickers the ship's captain and crew should have been banged up as suspected people smugglers.

But instead I conclude the government is more interested in triumphalism and playing to its base.
You still haven't answered the question. Let me refresh your memory. Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight what would your immediate action have been on receiving a call which could be interpreted as a vessel captain requiring immediate assistance for a hijack?
 
Au contraire.

On 26th October, when I posted my comments the oil tanker was tied up in Southampton. By this time those in authority ought to have been able to work out that there were a series of interpretations of events. If the government was at all serious about deterring people traffickers the ship's captain and crew should have been banged up as suspected people smugglers.

But instead I conclude the government is more interested in triumphalism and playing to its base.

@exbluejob got there first! :)

However, I asked you to answer my question and you have twice avoided it. Perhaps you could explain what "Au contraire" refers to? You are happy to criticise, but wriggle to avoid saying what you would have done in the circumstances.

(ETA to add a necessary word.)
 

Pteranadon

LE
Book Reviewer
@exbluejob got there first! :)

However, I asked you to answer my question and you have twice avoided it. Perhaps you could explain what "Au contraire" refers to? You are happy to criticise, but wriggle to avoid saying what you would have done in the circumstances.

(ETA to add a necessary word.)
I haven't wriggled. I have said that the ships captain and crew should have been held as suspected people smugglers. I would not have made as much breast beating about Britain's wonderful fighting forces protecting the seas from piracy, until it was clear that there had actually been a hijack attempt.
 
I haven't wriggled. I have said that the ships captain and crew should have been held as suspected people smugglers. I would not have made as much breast beating about Britain's wonderful fighting forces protecting the seas from piracy, until it was clear that there had actually been a hijack attempt.
How would you have held the ships captain and crew? Bear in mind the ship was at sea off the Isle of Wight and the master had made a 'distress call'?
 
I haven't wriggled. I have said that the ships captain and crew should have been held as suspected people smugglers. I would not have made as much breast beating about Britain's wonderful fighting forces protecting the seas from piracy, until it was clear that there had actually been a hijack attempt.

I haven't wriggled.

Really? Have you answered my question about what YOU would have done to deal with the situation?

I have said that the ships captain and crew should have been held as suspected people smugglers

Did you say so before the operation was carried out to deal with potential hijackers? No, I thought not.

I would not have made as much breast beating about Britain's wonderful fighting forces protecting the seas from piracy

I think you will find that the "breast beating" was being carried out by the media.

until it was clear that there had actually been a hijack attempt.

Again. you are flying in the face of the intense media coverage, which included the usual speculation.

To sum up, then, it would seem you would have been happy to let the incident continue on the basis that until HMG knew exactly what was going on everything would be OK. The ship's crew might have been in no danger, and there might have been no potential threat of a terrorist event.

And if the incident HAD resulted in deaths or injuries to the ship's crew, or a terrorist incident HAD occurred, I wonder if you would have been one of those howling: "Why wasn't something done to stop it?"
 
The Guardian are still looking to dig the dirt on this incident. The post below is copied this morning from a shipping forum I occasionally use:

Hello, I'm doing some research about the incident that took place on the Liberian-flagged crude oil tanker, the Nave Andromeda, on 25 October 2020. As I'm sure you know, this was a suspected hijacking (though all charges have since been dropped) that took place just off the coast of the Isle of Wight.

I'm looking to speak to anyone with inside knowledge of what happened on board that day and in the days leading up to the incident - in particular the captain or crew of the boat, though I'd also be interested in talking to anyone else who knows something about it. Or if anyone could direct me to any useful resources or information, such as lists of people who were on board, or other details, that would also be hugely appreciated.

I'm a journalist working for the Guardian's Long Read section, and I am hoping to write something in-depth about the incident and its wider implications - but that depends on whether I can find anyone willing to be interviewed. Happy to give more details if anyone's interested - and I'd be so grateful for any leads!
 
The Guardian are still looking to dig the dirt on this incident. The post below is copied this morning from a shipping forum I occasionally use:

Hello, I'm doing some research about the incident that took place on the Liberian-flagged crude oil tanker, the Nave Andromeda, on 25 October 2020. As I'm sure you know, this was a suspected hijacking (though all charges have since been dropped) that took place just off the coast of the Isle of Wight.

I'm looking to speak to anyone with inside knowledge of what happened on board that day and in the days leading up to the incident - in particular the captain or crew of the boat, though I'd also be interested in talking to anyone else who knows something about it. Or if anyone could direct me to any useful resources or information, such as lists of people who were on board, or other details, that would also be hugely appreciated.

I'm a journalist working for the Guardian's Long Read section, and I am hoping to write something in-depth about the incident and its wider implications - but that depends on whether I can find anyone willing to be interviewed. Happy to give more details if anyone's interested - and I'd be so grateful for any leads!
I have absolutely no problem with journalists investigating what was a very odd (and potentially) serious event.
 
I have absolutely no problem with journalists investigating what was a very odd (and potentially) serious event.
2 things here:

1) They are Journalists therefore any semblance of Truth will be watered down so that it is a homeopathic remedy
2) It is the Guardian so it will be Tories grrr, Boris grrr, and the resulting headline will be ....SBS Took Away my Teddybear, and it is Boris's fault.
 

MoleBath

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The Royal Navy used to deal with pirates.See these bleeding heart liberals waiting to hear the case for the defence.

1620811514572.png
 

Pteranadon

LE
Book Reviewer
I haven't wriggled.

Really? Have you answered my question about what YOU would have done to deal with the situation?

I have said that the ships captain and crew should have been held as suspected people smugglers

Did you say so before the operation was carried out to deal with potential hijackers? No, I thought not.

I would not have made as much breast beating about Britain's wonderful fighting forces protecting the seas from piracy

I think you will find that the "breast beating" was being carried out by the media.

until it was clear that there had actually been a hijack attempt.

Again. you are flying in the face of the intense media coverage, which included the usual speculation.

To sum up, then, it would seem you would have been happy to let the incident continue on the basis that until HMG knew exactly what was going on everything would be OK. The ship's crew might have been in no danger, and there might have been no potential threat of a terrorist event.

And if the incident HAD resulted in deaths or injuries to the ship's crew, or a terrorist incident HAD occurred, I wonder if you would have been one of those howling: "Why wasn't something done to stop it?"
For crystal clarity.
If a ship in the channel sends a message to say it has been hijacked, the armed forces had to respond and secure the ship. However, there was always a possibility that there was more to the tale than piracy in the English channel. I wasn't following the events on 25th October, but the points I made on 26th October should have been evident the previous day. The ship should have been held as any other smugglers craft and the crew arrested.
 

Latest Threads

Top