Navy frees pirates' hostages

Interesting article:

Navy frees pirates' hostages - Africa, World - The Independent

I particularly like the views of Norwegian shipping magnate Jacob Stolt-Nielsen who "faced criticism for suggesting pirates captured off the Horn of Africa should be sunk with their skiffs or executed on the spot."

Nothing wrong with his view IMHO.

 

Good news for a change. It's a shame that HMS Cornwall and the other Type 22's are getting the chop this year as part of SDSR.

I can sympathise with the Norwegian shipping magnate's views, but there is no way that'll ever get past the lawyers! IMHO, I think that 'Q' ships should be used against the pirates. It would put that seed of doubt in their mind that there may just be a platoon of trigger happy Royal/US Marines waiting for them every time they approach a merchant ship.

 

Father Dougal- Er, right so Ted. So the Navy frees 5 hostages from a boat, where they were held by Blackbeard?
Father Ted -That's right Dougal, held by pirates so they were.
Dougal - Then where is Blackbeard and his mates and the parrot now then Ted?
Ted - Well Dougal, they took their boat off them, fed and watered them for a couple of days then took them home but without the boat.
Dougal - What? Do you mean nobody is hanging them or punishing them at all apart from being stuck on a boat with Royal Navy humour for a couple of days?
Ted - No Dougal, and worse still, they have better Ipods and suits than that Iranian lot!
Dougal - Ya eejit Ted, go back to sleep......................................................................................

 

I've heard on the grapevine recently that several private military contractors are seeking to recruit 'sea marshals' to redress this very problem. A Number of shipping lines are keen to place teams aboard a number of their vulnerable vessels transiting the danger zone. As the vessels will be in international waters it seems that it's only a matter of time before these parasites more than meet their match. I understand that the 'rules of engagement' are to detain where possible, destroy their vessels and hand the offenders over to the jurisdiction of the state to which the vessel is flagged for due process. Apparently there's no need for Q Ships and such a move will more than up-the-ante and carry the fight to those who see piracy as their right of passage!

 

IMHO it'd make things more dangrous, you have what 2 or 3 marshals on a ship, what do they do when the pirates start hacking the faces off the crew to make them come out into the open - wasn't there a ship taken with Marshals abourd who jumped over the side at first sign of attack, better a civilian crew with hoses to attempt to repel pirates then comply if they make it aboard

Ross kemp on pirates, made for very intresting viewing, the guys he interviewed would dump a crew on an island with food & water, but said if a crew resisted then they'd start by slicing hands open and kill if needs be- also may have been BS but claims that some ship owners actully pay for hijacks to occur (I can only assume inflating claims for property lost or its cheaper then safely decommsioning ships)

 

Isn't that what Chris Farrell, who was on the Apprentice and now convicted of fraud , has been doing lately?

 

Reference to ipod in the third post.Thats good going.And it saved me from doing it.

 

I'm curious about the extreme vilification pirates seem to receive. How true were/are the claims that many pirates (at least initially - they seem to have geared up lately) were just fishermen turning to the only action they could to provide support for their families?

Why are pirates who may only kidnap and ransom given as bad a rap as someone who murders or rapes?

In regards to the sea marshal idea, I have heard it scorned because at the first signs of resistance pirates can RPG the wheelhouse and cabins or damage the prop, leading to a much stickier situation than just hijacking/ransom.

 

Abrat:

Good questions. They are certainly thieves, and they certainly threaten (but rarely deploy) violence. But there are many people in the world who are far, far worse.

Their motive? Lettuce. Not God, not conquest, not politics - dosh. To my eye, this makes them almost quaintly old fashioned.

When the Americans or ROKs send in their SEALs, they crumple. These are not trained fighters. And if you see footage of the villages from which they hail, they are dirt poor.

Compared to some of the psychotic killers who once sailed the Spanish Main, these Somalis entrepreneurs are gentlemen of the waves.

 

The pirates are an obvious target for the 'We Hate Scum' tendency because they are a)Brown and b) have been helpfully flagged up as SCUM by the D Mail.

I seem to remember a Somali pirate type being interviewed on telly whose message to the West was simply:'If you won't share some of your wealth and stability with us, then we will share our poverty and instability with you.'

Seems fair enough.

 

I think you will find that the West does GIVE quite a lot of money to various parts of Africa, the problem is that 99.9% seems to used to buy weapons or disappear into the various leaders and their minions, Swiss bank a/c's, before it is used to help the lower ends of the food chain!

 

Actually on board "Security Teams" have been employed since the early 90s, initially on Cruise Liners, but also on merchant vessels. However, the question of say a British PSC placing armed security officers on board a British Vessel, would be as illegal as arming civilian Sky Marshals on board a UK aircraft as under UK Law, including the former AMSA and relevant paragraphs in both the NASC and NMSC, the only persons permitted to be armed with firearms on board a vessel or aircraft are Constables (ie the Police) who are duly authorised by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or Regional Chief Constables. It therefore follows that Foreign PSC, including our dear cousins across the water, would similarly not be permitted to be employed on board a UK Vessel which in effect is Sovereign Territory of the United Kingdom, in much the same way as Foreign Vessels are Sovereign Territory of the Flag States to which they belong and therefore subject to the laws of those States. You can see where complications might arise, particularly when the International Naval Vessels operating in the Indian Ocean, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden must first seek permission from relevant Flag States before they can board a vessel to search it ! Confused - You Will Be ! The Master of a vessel can take advice on what security precautions he could use to deter boarding, such as placing razor wire around ships rails, employing electric security fencing, emmploying security lighting or the use of Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) However, as was proved in both the South China Sea and off Somalia, the little buggers can often fiind ways to over-ride most deterrents, particularly if they are determined.

The case of placing armed soldiers or servicemen aboard vessels carrying military supplies in time of war or conflict, is also slightly complicated when using Foreign Flagged vessels as the FCO has to obtain permission well in advance. For British Vessels in such cases, the Secretary of State for Transport merely has to sign an order to place them under MOD Control (Ships Taken Up From Trade)(STUFT).

 

I also forgot to mention that Naval Vessels are powerless to intervene, even on the High Seas, unless the Pirates/Gunmen are actually caught in the act of discharging weapons at a vessel or in the act of boarding. Once they are on board a vessel, then the law of an Individual State takes over, which is why the Russian Navy went to the assistance of one of their vessels last year (MV Faina) because it was transporting T-72 Tanks to a client State in Africa.