Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

... 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??

77 replies

SCARYspicemonster · 27/10/2009 18:19

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?

OP posts:
ooojimaflip · 28/10/2009 11:33

Where do you draw the line though? If this couple had capsized in high seas, and there was a massive search and rescue, people risking their lives to save them would that be ok? What if, as has happened, something like that happened during a race? Is a race more important than sailing around the world for the experience? What about if it was a humanitarian mission?

Going to sea in a relatively small boat is inherently risky. The risk of getting kidnapped by pirates - even in a high risk area and there is some debate as to if they did this/did this knowingly - is small by comparison.

The NYT journalist is another case of where to draw the line - they clearly believed it was worth the risk. We don't know what the result would have been if they hadn't been kidnapped so we can't know for sure, even if we strongly disagree. But if we hadn't treated them the same as journalists we do agree with, where would that leave them.

Original poster
SCARYspicemonster · 28/10/2009 11:37

I don't think we should leave either the sailors or the hacks to rot (and I don't think I've implied that anywhere have I?).

OP posts:
edam · 28/10/2009 11:38

While obviously search and rescue esp. where pirates are a risk is dangerous for the searchers and hideously expensive, I've known people in the navy and mountain rescue who are remarkably chipper about it - viewing it as a chance to use their skills and test their training.

ooojimaflip · 28/10/2009 11:48

SCARY - no I don't think you are saying that. I'm disagreeing with second guessing other people's risk/benefit assesments, and with the general risk aversion creeping into our culture. If things don't go tits up sometimes we are not trying hard enough. I do not intend to attribute these opinions to you other than in the specific cases discussed.

frakula · 28/10/2009 11:53

DH2B says where the couple were was supposedly safe waters. If Naval forces had no intelligence that pirates were operating where the couple were last known to be then they can hardly have known!

Piracy is a risk wherever in the world you are but they were in no more danger, supposedly, than if they'd been in the Med. Sailing very close the coast of Somalia is quite obviously silly and the Gulf of Aden isn't too sensible but if you look on a map and think about it, given that the pirates are, to the best of everyone's knowledge, in tiny fishing skiffs and land-based, Seychelles-Tanzania isn't an unreasonable route. Of course certain suspicons are correct and the pirates have mother-ships then it changes everything but there would be no reason at all for this couple to know that.

Original poster
SCARYspicemonster · 28/10/2009 12:03

I'm very cross about the risk aversion creeping into our culture too. Was it on here that someone wanted to cover their patio in that squishy stuff so their newly walking child didn't scrape their knees? And don't even talk to me about that bloody CBeebies Autumn piece where the children all wear helmets to go apple picking!

I didn't realise that they were sailing a 'safe' route so I've clearly got completely the wrong end of the stick on this one - apols. When I heard it on the radio, it made it sound like they were skirting the Somalian coast line hoping for the best.

Move along, nothing to see here

OP posts:
frakula · 28/10/2009 12:11

They may well have been (for the thrill) but their last known position and probable route indicate otherwise. I wouldn't classify anywhere round there as 'safe' though so that's probably the wrong word to use but if you were going to sail then they weren't taking undue risks IYSWIM. A yacht (probably theirs) was spotted 200miles off the Somali coast with a skiff being towed. Their route takes them well south of the Somali coastline.

France are quite pissed off about the whole thing because the Seychelles is 'their' territory and this is a bit close to home for them!

ErnestTheBavarian · 28/10/2009 12:24

Did anyone read about the new trend for Russia's ultra rich exciting themed breaks? They take them on a tour on a yacht off the Somali coast, lasel with all the latest top noch guns & weapons. Apparently, they aren't allowed to act first, but if any pirates attack them, they get to go mad with all their guns and ammo.

ilovemydogandmrobama · 28/10/2009 12:25
Shock
scaryteacher · 28/10/2009 12:36

The Marines are the Marines who may be members of the SBS, but I'd like to point out that the SAS are the equivalent of the SBS, not the other way around!!

scaryteacher · 28/10/2009 12:37

Also, the patrols off Somalia are not just UK patrols, but EU and NATO - part of Op Atalanta to interdict the piracy.

frakula · 28/10/2009 13:47

Ernest - here if you fancy it.

"Most cruises offer a mini-bar
We offer a mounted Mini-Gun"

ErnestTheBavarian · 28/10/2009 14:01

"We sail up and down the coast of Somalia waiting to get hijacked by pirates. We encourage you to bring your 'High powered weapons' along on the cruise. If you don't have weapons of your own, you can rent them on the boat."

You know, I would but I promised to lend dh the AK49, so, you know, and anyway, once you get used to one of those, a mini gun just doesn't cut it any more.

TBH I'm not rich or russian enough for this modern day 'sport'.

Original poster
SCARYspicemonster · 28/10/2009 14:09

That website is not real

OP posts:
frakula · 28/10/2009 14:18

If it were it would be exceedingly unethical and probably illegal...

Who's up for an MN cruise? Ernest is out but I've got a couple of M-16s up for grabs and an RPG lying around somewhere.

Original poster
SCARYspicemonster · 28/10/2009 14:22

I'm up for it. Now where did I leave my AK47 ...

OP posts:
ABatDead · 28/10/2009 14:27

This entire thing winds me up enormously.

overmydeadbody - I volently disagree with this:

"What's wrong with doing stupid or dangerous things in life? People can do whatever they want in their lives."

I used to manage a fleet of ships, huge supertankers and and bulk carriers that we NEVER ordered to stop off Java and Singapore for the very reasons foxytocin points out. Pirate risk was incredibly high, shipowners would never agree to have ships waiting for orders.

Likewise, big ships often sail round storms but several of the ships I managed had to delberately sail in to storms to save amateur yachtmen. The ships captains had to divert, they had no choice, I could not order them back. The nearest ship goes to the rescue.

Just because somebody can afford to buy a yacht does not mean they have the right to sail in dangerous waters. Whether that danger comes from storms or pirates or other shipping. Somebody has to go and risk their lives to go and save them.

ErnestTheBavarian · 28/10/2009 14:30

d'oh, AK 47, I knew AK49 didn't sound quite right . Must brush up on my firearm jargon.

Scary, maybe your dh has nicked it like mine? Kids playing in garden/ down the park?

GetOrfMoiLand · 28/10/2009 14:44

By ABetaDad "Likewise, big ships often sail round storms but several of the ships I managed had to delberately sail in to storms to save amateur yachtmen. The ships captains had to divert, they had no choice, I could not order them back. The nearest ship goes to the rescue."

Is that an unwritten rule then, that large ships go in to rescue stricken vessels even if it is at risk to themselves?

GetOrfMoiLand · 28/10/2009 14:45

I love the Margaret Rutherford/MorningPaper allusion, btw

Original poster
SCARYspicemonster · 28/10/2009 14:57

Ernest - I think my DS might have left it down the end of the garden by the shed. Going rusty no doubt!

OP posts:
ABatDead · 28/10/2009 15:00

GetOrfMoiLand - it is a legal obligation:

Obligations of the shipmaster

Article 98 (1) of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea[4] on the other hand provides that:

Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew, or the passengers: (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost[5]; (b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him . . . .

Likewise, the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS)[6] provides that "the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance . . . ."[7]

ABatDead · 28/10/2009 15:02

The question is how do you define "without serious danger" and "reasonably be expected of him"

There is always danger in any rescue.

GetOrfMoiLand · 28/10/2009 15:06

Well, you learn something new every day. Yes, some lovely weasel words there to contend with.

Your old job sounds fascinating.

UnquietDad · 28/10/2009 15:12

They probably went there to "find themselves".