... to think it is a bit stupid and actually very selfish to sail off the East coast of Africa when you're very, very likely to be captured by Somali pirates??

[SCARYspicemonster]

Another couple and their boat have gone missing, on their way from the Seychelles to Tanzania. Just accept that it's a bit bloody dangerous round there at the moment and that you may not be able to fulfil your dream of going round the world. Alright?

Were you, mp?

(settles down with cup of tea and interested expression)

Ahhh well when I was a yougn woman I was holidaying in the Gambia and I took a local ferry across to the Gambian sea... it was basically a canoe containing 56 people, 78 chickens and a goat (it was Eid) and half way across this motor boat comes over rocking our boat in their wake and these lithe unsmiling chaps say somethingorother and everyone hands them money - then we go on our way. Then I ask one of the locals what it was all about and they tell me: "They say: 'give us the white girl or we kill you' so we paid them off."

I was rather and

Anyway I travelled across the sea to a small town where hundreds of tiny children followed my around like I was Princess Diana and lived to tell the tale

and Swiss Chocolate Mme?

ooh MP how scary!

It would have been scarier if I'd know what they were saying

In fact I would probably have stood up and said: "Young man! This is jolly unreasonable!" and got myself carried off to be a pirate's wife

So not captain Jack sparrow at all?

DH2B says:

1. They probably weren't in a zone designated as being 'dangerous' but obviously no-one can prove it
2. You can't do anything about pirates unless you actually see a weapons laden boat stalking another boat, and the minute they chuck their weapons overboard as long as they have a fishing net with them they're classed as fishermen and have every right to be there
3. "We're not sure" isn't code for anything (anything other than we probably know more than we're telling but we can't tell you how we know and we can't tell you what we know because we might not be able to use it)
4. Naval patrols off Somalia are making the pirates head further out into the Indian Ocean and their proximity to the Seychelles is causing him a big headache
5. The French Nacy are very glad that they're British, but not so happy about the distance they were from the Seychelles
6. He would also appreciate it if amateur sailors didn't go poking aroud there because it disturbs his beauty sleep

Ohhh...I missed mp's story whilst I was writing that. Definitely one to tell the grandchildren.

Oh I do feel very sorry for them and hope they are returned safe and sound. I just think that the pirates seem to be getting increasingly desperate and obviously small private vessels are slightly easier to hijack than bloody great tankers.

Well you'd think...but actually pirates have waltzed up to 2 French Navy supply ships in the last few weeks. More fool them! Big vessels are often easier (and more profitable).

MP
ooooh, scary.

"Young man! This is jolly unreasonable!"

• Can't help myself imagining a film screenplay where pirates end up saddling themselves with a Margaret Rutherford-type battleaxe instead of the Keira Knightly they are hoping for.

(No offence intended to you MP, I am confident you are more KK than MR )

Apparently because international naval forces are patrolling near the Somali coast the pirates are moving further out into previously safe waters, so possibly the couple didn't realise they were in a dangerous area. However, I do generally get cross with people who fuck off to war zones/other dangerous places getting all Ross Kemp, get captured and waste a shitload of resources, everyone's time and sometimes the lives of security people trying to get them out again - esp. journalists.

i agree, and said the same thing when I saw it. Its fucking irresponsible of them, and now other ppl will have to put themselves at risk to rescue them. There is a FSO website for a reason.

So journalists shouldn't go anywhere that is dangerous? So those operating there can continue to do so with impunity, ignored by the outside? Yeah, that works.

And to the more general point - people chose to do dangerous things every day. Unless you sit VERY still, you are going to be at risk of something happening. Some of these things may impact on other people.

Well actually I think they should think about it oojimaflip. There was that American journalist the other month who ignored all advice and went into an area in Afghanistan he knew was very dangerous. He was rescued but his interpreter and a British soldier were killed during that rescue. There's a fine line between bravery and utter foolhardiness in the name of glory IMO

Unnecessary and stupid to sail anywhere near that region. Posh and stupid.

I don't have a problem with journos going into these kind of places. However even journos no longer go into certain parts of Somalia.

Agree with others about this being a crazy thing to do after being told of the dangers. I heard a family member being interviewed on the radio about it yesterday and they actually sounded a bit miffed that this is being pointed out.

Journalists are very different. I think what they do is v v important and necessary although they do seem to be expected to take bigger and bigger risks these days in order to fulfill the expectations of our 24 hr rolling news which wants more and more graphic details.

No, I defend what I said about it's stupid for journalists going to dangerous places, especially when they end up risking the lives of others by having to be rescued. I doubt the presence of journalists makes any difference at all to atrocities being committed. The Taleban are hardly worried about bad PR are they?

The presence of journalists certainly DOES make a difference to how groups behave. Otherwise N Korea, Sri Lanka and the Chechens wouldn't have been/still are limiting/stopping access. And safety is often the excuse that is given. I wouldn't worry too much though, there won't be any money for foreign journalists soon anyway. As a society we have decided (though you wouldn't know it sometimes) that we value a free press, that a free press leads to society generally getting better and people being held to account. As part of this, we believe that journalists should be afforded a special status internationally, and that this is worth defending militarily. If you disagree with this, then it's not really the journalists you should criticise, who (though in their own self interest in some cases) are just playing the game according to the rules, it's whether a free press deserves to be defended militarily.

Well said, oojimaflip. No journalists = no scrutiny = despotic regimes, terrorists or even allegedly democratic governments getting away with war crimes.

As for this couple, think as others have said they thought they were taking a relatively safe route not realising the pirates are changing their tactics. Even if they were bloody stupid, I'd feel very sorry for them now - the pirates expect fat ransoms and these guys are not multinational corporations and don't have the money to pay.

Of course I think people should be rescued. And also that there are some brilliant, brilliant journalists risking their lives in order to report honestly and objectively about things we would know nothing about if they didn't do that. But with risk comes responsibility. I have not read a single report anywhere defending what that NYT journalist did - it was bloody stupid.

Maybe this couple were simply unlucky but on PM they didn't say anything about the couple thinking they were taking a safe route and there was about a 15 minute report on the whole saga. I hope they are returned safe and well and that no one else is hurt in making that happen.